> Agreed, and applied as one patch. Except I noticed you also fixed a > couple of entries which were missing the progname in the messages -- I > broke those out to a separate patch instead.
Thanks! > Made a small change to "using as much I/O as available" rather than > "as possible", which I think is a better wording, along with the > change of the idle wording I suggested before. (but feel free to point > it out to me if that's wrong).
LGTM, I apparently missed your suggestion when I re-read the thread.
I am just wondering whether this could/should be back-patched, maybe? It is not a bug fix, of course, but OTOH is rather small and probably helpful to some users on current releases.
Good point. We should definitely back-patch the documentation updates.
Not 100% sure about the others, as it's a small behaviour change. But since it's only in verbose mode, I doubt it is very likely to break anybodys scripts relying on certain output or so.
