Mark Jamsek <mark@jamsek.com> wrote:
> I prefer the timeout approach, but I'm happy to change it if you think
> it's better? I don't have any real argument apart from that's just what
> I'm accustomed to so I haven't even given much thought to what could be
> the "better" approach.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, I just raised a (very)
small concern given how less(1) works, but it wasn't intended to block
your progress on this, just curiosity to see what what the reason.

Thanks again for working on this :)   (and sorry for the noise!)