Hi Eric, On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: > As for fmt, I'll let others chime in; it's the sort of thing where a > patch speaks louder than requests.
A "patch, please" reply is completely fine. Going to the trouble of making a patch wherein the patch is not considered is not quite so fine. I guess I should make it clearer: would you-all accept a patch that added a "-g" option to set the goal column as opposed to deriving it by multiplying the width by 0.93 ? It would permit results consistent with BSD and Plan-9 flavors of fmt. Thanks !
