I was wondering about that too ... does anyone remember the rationale for the current behavior? But the message for the non-wait case seems like it could stand to be improved independently of that.
Not totally independent.
If the default is changed to --wait then the message can be written assuming the user understands what "--no-wait" does; but if the default is left "--no-wait" then cluing the user into the asynchronous behavior and telling them how to get the more expected synchronous behavior would be helpful.
