Re: [announce] execline-2.5.0.0

From: Guillermo <gdiazhartusch_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:56:59 -0300

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 2.4.0.0 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-2.4.0.0 and not execline-3.0.0.0?"
  * "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? √≠mport is still here?"
4) "I definitely have to take a closer look now."
5) "Oh."

G.
Received on Mon Apr 02 2018 - 16:56:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:19 UTC