From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 11 01:17:39 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48C016A4CE for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:17:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtphost.cis.strath.ac.uk (smtphost.cis.strath.ac.uk [130.159.196.96]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BED543D58 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:17:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chodgins@cis.strath.ac.uk) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (chrishodgins.force9.co.uk [84.92.20.141]) j2B1HW3X016915; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:17:32 GMT Message-ID: <4230F2F1.5060401@cis.strath.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:22:57 +0000 From: Chris Hodgins User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050204) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Giorgos Keramidas References: <200503110050.j2B0o6H9032807@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200503110050.j2B0o6H9032807@freefall.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CIS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@cis.strath.ac.uk for more information X-CIS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-CIS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 6, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90) X-CIS-MailScanner-From: chodgins@cis.strath.ac.uk cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/46382: ps(1) could use a "repeat" mode X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:17:40 -0000 Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > The following reply was made to PR bin/46382; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Giorgos Keramidas > To: Chris Hodgins > Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: bin/46382: ps(1) could use a "repeat" mode > Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:45:33 +0200 > > On 2005-03-10 22:40, Chris Hodgins wrote: > > This pr suggests that a -c option is included with ps to add a repeat > > mode (see the description below). Looks like the -c option is now > > used by something else. > > > > Perhaps this should be closed now, or maybe we could use -R as it > > seems to be one of the few remaining letters free. :) > > Reading through the original PR text, I was a bit puzzled. Isn't the > functionality of the requested option already supported by top? > That was my first thought as well. I don't see any real benefit to this over top. Somebody want to close it? Chris