Re: [9fans] Man pages for add-ons

[Iruata Souza <iru.muzgo@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis
<eekee57@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2010, at 00:28, hiro wrote:
>>
>> Following your logic we must be one of the luckiest mailing list around
>
> I was speaking of lunix & co, on the basis that given enough additional apps
> & things the same problems will arise.
>
>> We use ls -t. It's better than git for your task.
>
>
> ...
>
> Surely not.
>
> ...
>
> Why didn't I think of that?
>
> ...
>
> Oh so if ls -lt in bin you see things grouped... the -l is important..
> yes... Oh when stuff is scattered through bin lib and other dirs you need ls
> -lt `{ find * } . Agh! Horrendous way-too-long-to-read output... I can pipe
> it into less -S and search. Wait, no less. That's fair enough, I can search
> in terminal... no search in terminal.
>
> Do not want to post "fail, feature needed." No contextual output from diff,
> and it would be a weak solution anyway. Perhaps some script to take the
> output from ls, pick the timestamp of a specified filename, and output only
> lines matching that timestamp. I could write that with only a little pain.
> :s Huh, I think we have a solution, but it's not just ls -t. ... And to
> simplify: rather than write a script I could ls -l a known file, snarf the
> timestamp, and ls -lt `{ find * } | grep <timestamp>. Well, that's bearable.
>
> I hope my stream of consciousness is readable, it's rather late here.
>
> Speaking of late, remember you should never let make install run at midnight
> (or it breaks the above solution).
>

since we are trying so hard to create new problems for Plan 9, should
i assume the old ones have all been solved?

iru