On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Jonathan Conder <j...@skurvy.no-ip.org> wrote: > > Maybe you're right, and it would probably make sense if someone wanted > to write a log of pacman output, they could use > instead of &>. > However, Allan seemed to imply that this wasn't the best solution, > although I think now I might have misread that. See > http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-April/010618.html. >
I am pretty sure there was no hidden meaning in what Allan wrote, i.e. no preference for the simple or the complex solution. Just that even for simple solutions, it's always nice to have patches :)
