Re: another undo patch: a feature request and implementation, should it be of interest

[Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

:> This patch does not change the usage notice nor documentation, so this
:> remains to do. (and perhaps stylistic or other changes if the code is
:> not up to your standards or I messed up somewhere)
:
:I did mess something up, namely parameter handling of new option in
:main() - the kludge around getopt was incomplete, and so, while the
:use examples in the previous mail would work, reordering them like
:this wouldn't:
:
:undo -d -3 -2
:
:Instead, that became equivalent to:
:
:undo -d -32
:
:This fixed in new patch.
:
:-- 
: -  Joel K. Pettersson

    Hmm. 

    Ok, the -t ts1/ts2 fixes look good.

    The 0-9 handling needs some help.  A lot of help.  It's just too messy.
    I think it needs to be handled either by giving it its own option 
    (instead of trying to parse 0-9 in getopt), or by integrating the index
    selection with -t by detecting that the TID values are not in 0x form.

    My preference is to simply make -t accept non 0x form transaction ids
    as indices instead of transaction ids.

					-Matt