Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:05:39 +0200 (CEST)
From:      Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To:        Ruben de Groot <mail25@bzerk.org>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, utisoft@gmail.com
Subject:   Re: Date representation as YY/DDD or YYYY/DDD
Message-ID:  <alpine.BSF.2.00.0906061405130.91225@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
In-Reply-To: <20090606101422.GB10672@ei.bzerk.org>
References:  <alpine.BSF.2.00.0906040113270.28607@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <200906050924.23167.kirk@strauser.com> <b79ecaef0906050950m53fda524i5652f57b1ac389ad@mail.gmail.com> <200906051208.43135.kirk@strauser.com> <b79ecaef0906051323s64a89fe2x134290524b633978@mail.gmail.com> <4A29EBB7.9090100@strauser.com> <20090606094648.GA10672@ei.bzerk.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0906061148350.90514@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20090606101422.GB10672@ei.bzerk.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> rsync isn't bloated and it's well written IMO. It still does only one job, and
> it does it well. As you say, most common tasks can still be done with only
> short options. This would change if some developer decided to add other,
> unrelated functionality. But that's harder if you want to maintain short options
> for the common tasks.
> Having only long options would place no such restrictions on bloating.
>
what program you mean about having only long options?



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0906061405130.91225>