"Thompson, David" <dthomps...@worcester.edu> skribis: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> I guess we must still support -E for compatibility. Probably it should >> do an implicit ‘sh -c’? > > This introduces implementation issues. What if a user provides both a > -E command *and* a command after '--'? What's the sane thing to do?
I’d consider this a bug in the user’s mind ;-) and would do whatever is easiest. > I also don't feel strongly that we need to keep flags around for > compatibility this early in the game, given that we are alpha software > and such. I think it’s neither black nor white. For instance, I use it at work for continuous integration. I can definitely migrate the scripts to the new syntax, but it’s best if it doesn’t break overnight. So we could remove -E from ‘--help’ and from the manual, but still keep it around for a while. WDYT? Ludo’.
