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 188.8.131.52 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-184.108.40.206 and not execline-220.127.116.11?" * "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." G.