On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 01:42:17PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 08:01:28PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 02:49:58PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote: > > > The first diff changes the last example in find(1). This diff: > > > (...) > > > - adds handling of *.gif files to illustrate ordering; > > > > but we already have an example that does this: > > > > Print out a list of all the files which are not both newer than > > ``ttt'' and owned by ``wnj'': > > > > $ find / \! \( -newer ttt -user wnj \) > > > > i think that covers it well enough. > > In the message to bugs@ that started this thread, djm@ got the ordering > of -o, specifically, wrong. I agree that the order of "and" is obvious, > but reasonable people can clearly believe that > > $ find . -name \*.jpg -o -name \*.gif -print0 > > will print both *.jpg and *.gif files. >
the poster closed that bug report with the words (from memory) "i should have rtfm". > > There is merit in being concise, but: > - this should be under CAVEATS, no matter where else it appears (i.e. if > you want to prevent duplication, remove it elsewhere); where you put this information is a matter of taste. there is nothing, nothing, which says it must go in CAVEATS. it might turn out that that is the best place for it, but in that case the diff should subtract the information already contained. > - getting this wrong is a somewhat serious security problem, and tons of > people get it wrong. Repeating it doesn't hurt. > right. so please add this information five times, so that for sure people will read it. jmc
