Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 09:51:04PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: >>That sounds like a good reason to retain the behavior you've come to >>value, even if it's not guaranteed or portable, but only via a new >>option. Then we can still change the default to be more efficient. > > Why on earth would we want to? Some people obviously like the current > behavior, and depend on the side effects, the desired behavior is easy > to get with existing tools, and adding a new option seems like > something that shouldn't be done without a very good reason. This > seems like optimization for the sake of optimization. (And it would > make chmod inconsistent with chown and chgrp.)
I don't feel very strongly one way or the other, since I don't plan to do the work. Realize that afaik no one is working on this. I merely added the item to the TODO list, and we know from experience that that's no guarantee it'll be done. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
