Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:02:01 +0100 From: Daniel Gerzo <danger@freebsd.org> To: <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT Message-ID: <ee6df5c65d96f600ff14178ff8c0ed0b@rulez.sk> In-Reply-To: <4FEAD5B8.2090301@FreeBSD.org> References: <4FEAA280.2070705@FreeBSD.org> <4FEAA599.9070107@FreeBSD.org> <031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A3012CA28AEB6D@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <4FEAC5B1.30104@FreeBSD.org> <031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A3012CA28AEB71@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <4FEAD5B8.2090301@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27.06.2012 10:43, Doug Barton wrote: > On 06/27/2012 02:09 AM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote: >> Doug, I'll post some performance figures, probably tomorrow. > > That's great, thanks. > >> But I do not agree with you that we have to reproduce the old sort >> bugs. >> It makes no sense and I am not going to do that. Absolutely not. > > That isn't what I said. What I asked is for you to *test* the > existing > sort vs. the new one, and to report where the behavior is different. > That's a very basic part of any sort of "replace a core utility" > project > such as this one. [ snip ] Doug, are you implying that if we were about to import a new version of GNU sort, you would be asking for the same data? I believe we do not make this kind of work with any vendor code that is being updated in the base; I do not really understand why should Oleg or anyone else do this work when the bsdsort is compatible with a recent version of GNU sort. -- Kind regards Daniel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ee6df5c65d96f600ff14178ff8c0ed0b>