2018-04-02 7:39 GMT-03:00 Laurent Bercot:
> User reports have come in by the hundreds and they are almost
> unanimous (sorry, Colin): they don't like the 22.214.171.124 change,
> pretending it hurts readability (as if), and writability too,
> of execline scripts. (What? People were actually writing execline
> scripts? Why haven't I heard of them before yesterday?)
> They want a revert to the old syntax.
> Users. They never know what they want.
1) "Oh, an announcement!" (timezone magic made this happen on Saturday for me)
2) "Wait, what? Whaaat?!"
3) All of this chaotically over a short period of time:
* "How is something like this execline-126.96.36.199 and not execline-188.8.131.52?"
* "Wait, is s6-linux-init still going to work? Did I miss a new
s6-linux-init release announcement?" (I don't know why my brains
focused on s6-linux-init instead of the major breakage of s6 and s6-rc
that not retaining the old names somehow would have produced)
* "Wait, did he rename the C source files too? Like
src/execline/=.c, src/execline/;.c, etc.?"
* "Wait, execline commands exist as executable files in the
filesystem, are the files going to actually have those names? Like
'test' and '['? That new makefile is going to be quite interesting..."
* "Wait, are programs still going to be callable by their old names?"
- "How? Compatilibity symlinks? Didn't he dislike multiple
personality binaries? Is execlineb going to implement the conversion
as part of its parsing?" (the latter could actually work?)
- "Does every execline script need to be rewritten now? How many
of those are out there already?"
* "Hmmm, using execline commands from a shell is going to be hell
now with all that character escaping."
* "Well, on the other hand, maybe no more ImageMagick-like name collisions..."
* "Let's see how many programs kept their names. Huh? ímport is still here?"
4) "I definitely have to take a closer look now."