On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 08:04:19PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > (in fact, given that this is just > > the internal tests, I am tempted to say that we should just make it > > "-r<arg>" for the sake of simplicity and consistency. But maybe somebody > > would be annoyed. I have never used "-r" ever myself). > > I didn't even know what '-r' does...
I had to look it up, too. :) > And I agree that changing it to '-r<arg>' would be the best, but this > patch series is about adding '--stress', so changing how '-r' gets its > mandatory argument (and potentially annoying someone) is beyond the > scope, I would say. OK, I'm fine with that (though once we've built the infrastructure to handle its unstuck form, I don't know if there's much point in changing it, so we can probably just let it live on forever). -Peff
