Didi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If by "unknown" you mean nameless, that's not what the patch does.
>> Such a patch would not even have been considered.
>
> I agree that hiding this information in some cases might not be
> optimal, but the main problem is that through this the 'groups'
> comman
On Apr 21, 2008, at 4:23 , Didi wrote:
If by "unknown" you mean nameless, that's not what the patch does.
Such a patch would not even have been considered.
I agree that hiding this information in some cases might not be
optimal, but the main problem is that through this the 'groups'
command
> If by "unknown" you mean nameless, that's not what the patch does.
> Such a patch would not even have been considered.
I agree that hiding this information in some cases might not be
optimal, but the main problem is that through this the 'groups'
command becomes utterly useless and confused qu
"Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Putting on my sysadmin hat, I am somewhat baffled by this discussion.
> Completely hiding unknown groups?
If by "unknown" you mean nameless, that's not what the patch does.
Such a patch would not even have been considered.
_
On Apr 20, 2008, at 14:37 , Russ Allbery wrote:
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Knowing that, I expect to revert that patch -- unless someone
can come up with a very good argument for the new behavior.
Out of curiosity, how have you used it?
Usually to tell whether two shells are i
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:37:44 -0700
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You can tell I don't use AFS and didn't do my homework.
> > I wish you'd noticed and spoken up a month or so ago.
>
> Unfortunately, I only follow the announcement list. :
