bug#14224: Feature request for the `cut`: record delimiter

[Bob Proulx]

Eric Blake wrote:
> Should we patch README to include this URL to current HACKING contents,
> since we don't ship HACKING in our tarballs?  Or, should we reconsider
> our position and start shipping HACKING in the tarballs?  Of the
> statements currently in README:
> 
> > If you obtained this file as part of a "git clone", then see the
> > README-hacking file.  If this file came to you as part of a tar archive,
> > then see the file INSTALL for compilation and installation instructions.
> 
> This one makes sense (HACKING won't be present unless you are working
> from git), except that you are not told _how_ to do a "git clone".
> 
> > If you would like to suggest a patch, see the files README-hacking
> > and HACKING for tips.
> 
> But this one doesn't mention anything about the files being git-only.

I think it would definitely make sense to include some information
about the preferred method of getting the source in the main README
file.  That file is usually the one included in downstream
distributions.  It would enable people to bootstrap themselves to the
source.  And GNU is all about access to the source.  So I think that
would make a lot of sense.

Bob