Chet Ramey wrote: > On 2/25/13 8:07 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: >> Chet Ramey wrote: >>> On 2/16/13 3:50 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote: >>>> I don't quite see the point of having gnu parallel discussed in the >>>> bash reference manual. >>> I was asked to add that in May, 2010 by Ole Tange and Richard Stallman. >> ---- >> Maybe now that it was done, it can be removed? > > I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent of the original request. Let's > see if we can clean it up instead. ---- I'm sure, but you edited out the rest of my reasoning. Note -- I don't feel strongly about this, one way or the other, but at the same time, I don't feel their request, nor your response are the best ones to take from an engineering or product perspective -- in part -- directly because of the confusion about whether or not parallel is bundled w/bash or not.
Using it in an example would be fine... but make a section out it? That's a fairly strong implication for it being something that's part of bash's official release or product. I realize this matter is more political than technical, but still, I would try to ask those questions of the original requestors and see if they might not revisit their requests...? you could even say -- a user asked if including parallel in it's own section in the manpage meant that parallel was going to be part of the bash distribution? I mean it wouldn't surprise me or seem unreasonable if it was included in the bash distribution (from a lay-person perspective). Knowing it's a perl-script, I'd be a bit surprised, personally, but hey, I've been wondering if you are going to embed the perl interpreter in bash as a dynamically loadable .so and allow perl-expressions on the command line as an option... *str8-face*...