On 06/15/2012 02:44 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
Rather than pause for 5 seconds, test the return code of the command and
require user input before exiting on failure. This avoids pausing after
successful command execution as well as possibly not waiting long enough
if the user happens to be doing some
I know, never send patches on Friday afternoon. So just pretend I just
now sent this. Early. Monday morning. ;-)
On 06/15/2012 02:44 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> Rather than pause for 5 seconds, test the return code of the command and
> require user input before exiting on failure. This avoids pausing
Rather than pause for 5 seconds, test the return code of the command and
require user input before exiting on failure. This avoids pausing after
successful command execution as well as possibly not waiting long enough
if the user happens to be doing something else for 5 seconds.
Signed-off-by: Dar
