On 11/11/2011 12:25 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/11/2011 10:36 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Are you proposing that --block-size keep the current behavior, and that
>> -k no longer be a synonym for --block-size=1k but instead becomes a new
>> long option?
>>
>> Makes sense to me
> 
> That sort of thing makes sense to me too.
> I assume --block-size should silently override -k
> if both options are specified (in either order)?
> Does -k need a long-named option?

GNU Coding Standards request that all short options have a corresponding
long option; by breaking the tie between -k and --block-size, we are
breaking that convention unless we also add a new long option for the
new meaning of -k.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake@redhat.com    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org