Michael Stone wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:06:10AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: >>I don't understand your comment in a bug report. Being more >>responsive seems like a good thing to me and good expected behavior. >>Could you say a few words about why you are filing a bug report on >>tail being more responsive? > > I can imagine that if someone is manually reviewing the output, they > may wish to have a certain interval to inspect new data before it is > scrolled by additional data.
In that case, use the deliberately undocumented ---disable-inotify option that was introduced in coreutils-7.6. With it, tail will sleep between iterations, as it did before. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
