A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1927 ====================================================================== Reported By: dwheeler Assigned To: ajosey ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 Issue ID: 1927 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Clarification Requested Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: Under Review Name: David A. Wheeler Organization: The Linux Foundation User Reference: Utilities Section: Utilities Page Number: NA Line Number: NA Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2025-06-01 01:18 UTC Last Modified: 2025-06-26 15:28 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: Add sponge utility ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0007211) eblake (manager) - 2025-06-26 15:28 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1927#c7211 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The GNU Coreutils maintainers pointed out several ways of updating files, some of which are better than others (many of the poor solutions lack ACID semantics, for those familiar with the database terminology of Atomic, Consistent, Isolated, and Durable): https://www.pixelbeat.org/docs/unix_file_replacement.html https://lists.gnu.org/r/coreutils/2025-06/msg00018.html The original proposal here does NOT guarantee ACID semantics. Although it is possible to write a sponge implementation that has atomic replacement semantics, and then ensure that sponsorship for adding the utility to POSIX requires atomic replacement, we then risk users running non-compliant versions that break compared to what the standard says. But if we standardize the functionality under a new name, we have the same situation as tar vs. pax where the standard utility may not ever gain popularity because people aren't aware of its addition. I interpret this feedback from coreutils as not necessarily being opposed to sponsoring the addition, but to at least be very careful about decisions on what requirements to place on the utility and whether to reuse the name sponge. Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2025-06-01 01:18 dwheeler New Issue 2025-06-01 01:18 dwheeler Status New => Under Review 2025-06-01 01:18 dwheeler Assigned To => ajosey 2025-06-11 16:49 dwheeler Note Added: 0007198 2025-06-22 08:43 stephane Note Added: 0007207 2025-06-26 15:28 eblake Note Added: 0007211 ======================================================================
