Date: 19 Nov 2005 17:28:40 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-current-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: "Matt Emmerton" <matt@gsicomp.on.ca> Cc: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> Subject: Re: Order of files with 'cp' Message-ID: <44fypsqnl3.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <002a01c5ecc6$e8a0cfe0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> References: <20051116161540.GB4383@uk.tiscali.com> <20051118091333.GA1058@galgenberg.net> <20051118145051.GA3713@Pandora.MHoerich.de> <20051119034522.GS39882@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <002a01c5ecc6$e8a0cfe0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Matt Emmerton" <matt@gsicomp.on.ca> writes: > > On Fri, 2005-Nov-18 15:50:53 +0100, Mario Hoerich wrote: > > >This just adds a -o flag to cp, which preserves order. > > > > I think that's overkill. IMHO, cp should just copy files in the order > > specified on the command line (or directory order for recursive copies). > > For most purposes, the order is irrelevant. In cases where it is > > relevant, the caller has a better idea of what order they want and can > > juggle the command line to suit. > > Hear hear! The underlying change, while technically sound, breaks POLA -- > which should have been the first thing to consider when this change was > suggested, and should have been rejected immediately on that ground alone. I don't follow this point. The existing behaviour was unpredictable, so it's unlikely anybody was depending on it. Therefore, the POLA doesn't apply. Can you explain what you mean? > Why not revert to the "legacy" behaviour, and use the -o option for the > "optimized" algorithm? That would, nonetheless, be fine with me.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44fypsqnl3.fsf>