On Saturday, July 13, 2024, Greg Wooledge <g...@wooledge.org> wrote: > > If two jobs happen to finish simultaneously, the next call to wait -n > should reap one of them, and then the call after that should reap > the other. That's how everyone wants it to work, as far as I've seen. > > *Nobody* wants it to skip the job that happened to finish at the exact > same time as the first one, and then wait for a third job. If that > happens in the loop above, you'll have only 4 jobs running instead of 5 > from that point onward. > > It feels like deja vu all over again. Didn't we already discuss this and agree that `wait -n' should wait jobs one by one without skipping any? Did it not make it to 5.3?
-- Oğuz
