On Mon, Apr 2, 2018, 8:06 AM John O'Meara <john.fr.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I initially didn't like the 2.4 name changes, perhaps I (and others)
> just need tinge to get used too it.
that should have been "time", not "tinge". The perils of writing email on a
Perhaps it would be useful to have a period of time where the old names are
> used for the programs and the new names are symlinks to the old names?
> Existing scripts would still work while we experiment with the new naming
> John O'Meara
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018, 6:39 AM Laurent Bercot <ska-skaw...@skarnet.org>
>> execline-220.127.116.11 is out.
>> It is with a very heavy heart that I must do this release.
>> User reports have come in by the hundreds and they are almost
>> unanimous (sorry, Colin): they don't like the 18.104.22.168 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. They can't be happy. Give them
>> what they ask for and they immediately start complaining about the
>> opposite of what they were complaining before. They're a plague on
>> software authors everywhere. I swear, computer programming would be
>> so much easier if there were no users at all!
>> But since programming is about being a slave to your users, I hear
>> them, and I submit. I'm reverting the change introduced in 22.214.171.124.
>> execline commands will keep the names they had in 126.96.36.199 and previous
>> I'm such a misunderstood genius.
>> The main difference between 188.8.131.52 and 184.108.40.206, though, is that
>> the "import" command has been removed. From 220.127.116.11 on, execline and
>> ImageMagick should not conflict anymore. Make sure your execline
>> scripts have been converted to using "importas"!
>> Bug-reports welcome.