From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 17 21:38:09 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E8AB1065672; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:38:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D958FC17; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:38:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o5HLUc47074849; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:30:38 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:30:42 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20100617.153042.119882392285756102.imp@bsdimp.com> To: dougb@FreeBSD.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <4C1A7953.4080201@FreeBSD.org> References: <20100617023441.008cd737@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org> <20100617100315.GA37522@nagual.pp.ru> <4C1A7953.4080201@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, ache@nagual.pp.ru, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, brian@Awfulhak.org, jilles@FreeBSD.org, des@des.no Subject: Re: svn commit: r209221 - head/bin/sh X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:38:09 -0000 In message: <4C1A7953.4080201@FreeBSD.org> Doug Barton writes: : I've been very supportive of Jilles work up to this point, and I think : he's done a great job of making our sh functional and compliant as a : scripting shell. However in my mind adding completion (and his : suggested inclusion of the kill builtin) tips the balance from "good : system shell" to more of an interactive shell, and that makes me : wonder if this is the right direction to go in. If we want a good : interactive bourne-based shell in the base I'd rather have the : discussion about which one to import, rather than trying to have our : sh catch up with the last 15 years of development in this area. My main objection to sh growing lots of new functionality is the embedded world. It is so much smaller than csh, like 1/3 the size. I'd prefer we keep it small, or at least keep it buildable in the small... Warner