From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Sun Jun 10 16:26:53 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA781020CD3; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:26:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9572E6AD39; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:26:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 8AE606D4; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:26:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:26:53 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Eitan Adler Cc: Bruce Evans , svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers Subject: Re: svn commit: r333945 - head/usr.bin/top Message-ID: <20180610162653.GA2999@FreeBSD.org> References: <201805202319.w4KNJ9hj038452@repo.freebsd.org> <20180521094344.Q1053@besplex.bde.org> <20180521063953.GA70671@FreeBSD.org> <20180610122819.GA75055@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:26:54 -0000 On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 08:56:24AM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 10 June 2018 at 05:28, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > I've just tried the latest top(1). Now it's even worse: > > ... > > Also, it is COMMA now. Can we please do something about this? I am not > > calling for "USER PRI" as Bruce had suggested, but "USERNAME PRI" is just > > about right. > > FWIW I have not forgotten about this. I am planning on completely > rewriting how the header, and data, get displayed so its low my > priority (pun intended) list to fix this specific case until then. Great! Looking forward to improvements. top(1) should be neat(TM). Take your time Eitan, it's not that urgent. ./danfe