bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g (original) (raw)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
From: | Jim Meyering |
---|---|
Subject: | bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g |
Date: | Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:08:47 +0200 |
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 07/05/2012 02:35 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > However, I'm tempted to remove it directly this time, since it's been > undocumented for a while: > > 5 years in df.1 and df --help: COREUTILS-69-151-g1e07a21 > 11 years in coreutils.texi: FILEUTILS-414-28-gf5bf6fe > > What do you think?
I agree, the option has been added to df in 1996, and declared obsolescent in 2001, so the period since the latter is twice as long as the active use.
And it's very easy to s/--megabytes/-BM/ ...
More important than 2001 is the year in which we removed the reference from the man page and from --help: 2007
- bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g, Andreas Jaeger, 2012/07/04
- bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/04
* bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g, Bernhard Voelker, 2012/07/05
* bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/05
* bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g, Eric Blake, 2012/07/05
* bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g, Jim Meyering, 2012/07/05
* bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g, Bernhard Voelker, 2012/07/05
* bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g,Jim Meyering <=
* bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g, Bernhard Voelker, 2012/07/11
* bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g, Jim Meyering, 2012/07/11
- bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/04
- Prev by Date:bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g
- Next by Date:bug#11866: command date don't accept 61 sec. minutes
- Previous by thread:bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g
- Next by thread:bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g
- Index(es):