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 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.

My reaction:

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- and not execline-"
  * "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."
5) "Oh."


Reply via email to