Subject: bug#22679: 25.0.91; ibuffer-do-shell-command-pipe truncate output

From: Glenn Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2016 13:28:59 -0400

Tino Calancha wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016, Glenn Morris wrote:
>
>> Yes, I don't know if it is worth adding such an argument.
>> I was really just complaining about how the function works. :)
> I like your proposal: it simplifies the code and it reads much better.
> But i am quite new here as to modify that stuff in simple.el:
> some people may not understand why to change `shell-command' just
> to fix one marginal command that just few people use.

You could ask on emacs-devel (though that is often unproductive).
Frankly my own preference would be to change the function so that it
does not erase the output buffer, and change the callers instead; but
that may be totally unfeasible.

> Of course the priority is to make the command works as it should.
> If i need to fix this i think i would find less resistance if my patch
> just modify the offending command, possibly with an ugly code.

You should feel free to just change ibuffer if that is what you prefer.
It will certainly be less hassle for you.