[PATCH v2 0/3] allow positional arguments with "run"

[Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>]

Dear Tom,

In message <20201106205245.GH5340@bill-the-cat> you wrote:
> 
> Sorry for the lack of feedback.  I guess, I just don't know.  There's at
> least two series now (this and Simon's setexp) where part of the
> feedback has been "our hush is ancient, and we should replace and keep
> it in sync, and add features _upstream_".  That position isn't wrong.
> But it's not easy to do, either.  I know you already said you didn't
> have time and wouldn't step up to do that.

This argument is not new, and I can fully understand this position,
too.  I'mm all to often myself in the position where the right Thing
(TM) requires more efforts and/or time than what is available in the
given project.

And from the maintainer's point of view, this has always been the
argument to sneak in code which is a workaround at best, and which
itself cements the original problem even more and makes it more
difficult to solve it at the roots.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Q:  Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?
A:  To prevent the sensible ones from going home.