On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 10:15:32AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Tom,
> 
> In message <20210706145420.GQ9516@bill-the-cat> you wrote:
> > 
> > > Updating to a current version would fix this, in an almost 100%
> > > backward compatible way.
> >
> > Let us cut to the chase then.  Who is going to port a modern version of
> > hush over to U-Boot, and maintain it?  If we fork and forget again,
> > we'll be in a bad place once again in 2-3 years.
> 
> Would we really be better off if we switch to some exotic piece of
> code instead (I was not able to locate any user base, nor other
> developers), which has been reported to have poor or no error
> handling, and comes with an incompatible command line interface?
> 
> There is a zillion of shell scripts in the field, from non-trivial
> boot sequences to complex download-and-upgrade scripts. You can't
> really even think of breaking compatibility on such a level.

As I've said a few times in this thread, this not being an sh-style
interpreter is a strike against it.  And if we're going to insist on a
bug-for-bug upgrade to our hush (so that all of the hugely complex
existing scripts keep working) we might as well not upgrade.  Frankly I
suspect that down the line IF a new cli interpreter comes in to U-Boot
we will have to keep the old one around as a "use this instead" option
for another long number of years, so that if there are any systems with
non-trivial scripts but upgrade U-Boot and don't / won't / can't
re-validate their entire sequence, they can just use the old cli.

-- 
Tom