A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1872 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                steffen
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    1003.1(2024)/Issue8
Issue ID:                   1872
Category:                   Shell and Utilities
Type:                       Clarification Requested
Severity:                   Editorial
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     Resolved
Name:                       steffen 
Organization:                
User Reference:              
Section:                    find 
Page Number:                2946 
Line Number:                98444 ff. 
Interp Status:              --- 
Final Accepted Text:        https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1872#c6956 
Resolution:                 Accepted As Marked
Fixed in Version:           
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2024-11-07 21:34 UTC
Last Modified:              2024-11-17 03:03 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    find: clarify "less safe" statement
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0006959) philip-guenther (reporter) - 2024-11-17 03:03
 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1872#c6959 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Two comments: first, if a trailing NUL is required, it's a terminator, not
a delimiter, so I would suggest using 't' instead of 'd' when considering
options.

Second, and more seriously, does this group think this sequence of events
suggests any adjustments to the processes *inside* the group that would
improve the outcomes?  "Hey, let's do this thing [NUL delimited filenames]
that solves a problem" "Sure" "btw, there's a bug in this idea"
<standardization continues> "Hey, this thing [which has been standardized]
has a problem!" <works starts on new thing, despite still requiring
everyone to do the thing with the bug>

This seems...not optimal?  It feels like there should have been a frank
discussion about the issue when it was reported and a decision made *then*
whether the standard would say "nope, ya'll are wrong to think this is a
problem and here's why" and it would be handled now by pointing at what was
discussed/agreed then OR it would have been agreed "yeah, this is a problem
that will need to be fixed" and the addition of -print0 / xargs -0 / etc
would have been undone/withdrawn until implementations had settled on how
to solve this problem and a revised proposal was made.

Personally, I think NUL as terminator instead of delimiter makes sense.  It
feels like a missed opportunity for broader review to catch a subtle glitch
in an interface. 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2024-11-07 21:34 steffen        New Issue                                    
2024-11-07 21:34 steffen        Name                      => steffen         
2024-11-07 21:34 steffen        Section                   => find            
2024-11-07 21:34 steffen        Page Number               => 2946            
2024-11-07 21:34 steffen        Line Number               => 98444 ff.       
2024-11-07 21:38 steffen        Note Added: 0006951                          
2024-11-08 01:40 steffen        Note Added: 0006952                          
2024-11-08 01:42 steffen        Note Edited: 0006952                         
2024-11-08 08:31 stephane       Note Added: 0006953                          
2024-11-12 09:48 geoffclare     Note Added: 0006954                          
2024-11-13 18:19 steffen        Note Edited: 0006952                         
2024-11-14 17:03 geoffclare     Note Added: 0006956                          
2024-11-14 17:04 geoffclare     Interp Status             => ---             
2024-11-14 17:04 geoffclare     Final Accepted Text       =>
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1872#c6956    
2024-11-14 17:04 geoffclare     Status                   New => Resolved     
2024-11-14 17:04 geoffclare     Resolution               Open => Accepted As
Marked
2024-11-14 17:05 geoffclare     Tag Attached: tc1-2024                       
2024-11-14 17:08 geoffclare     Note Edited: 0006956                         
2024-11-16 08:54 stephane       Note Added: 0006957                          
2024-11-16 19:42 steffen        Note Added: 0006958                          
2024-11-17 03:03 philip-guentherNote Added: 0006959                          
======================================================================


  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to