I don't believe the sprockets and sprockets-rails maintainers (actually it's up to the Rails maintainers, see rails/rails#28430) currently consider it broken. (I am not a committer/maintainer on any of those projects). So there is no point in "waiting for someone else to fix" it; that is not going to happen (unless you can change their minds). You just need to figure out the right way to use sprockets 4 with rails as it is.

The expect wait command returns more arguments if the spawned process is killed but unbuffer just always returns the 3rd argument.

Write modules for publication, even if you only use them privately. You will appreciate documentation in the future.

A product’s onceability is, to a certain extent, linked to its usefulness. If it is really useful, we will certainly go to considerable lengths to repair it.

now that I realize how easy it is to just manually include this in my app: <%= javascript_include_tag 'xray', nonce: true if Rails.env.development? %> I regret even wasting my time getting it to automatically look for and add a nonce to the auto-injected xray.js script

The new 2.1 version comes with a few necessary but reasonable changes in method signatures. As painful as that might sound to your Rails-spoiled ears, we preferred to fix design mistakes now before dragging them on forever.

In any case signal handling in shells is one of the least reliable and portable aspects. You'll find behaviours vary greatly between shells and often between different versions of a same shell. Be prepared for some serious hair pulling and head scratching if you're going to try to do anything non-trivial.

Also, this code will fail if $$ is not the process group leader, such as when the script is run under strace. Since a call to setsid(2) is probably tricky from a shell script, one approach might be to ps and obtain the process group ID from that.

you really need #!/bin/sh -m for correct behavior of nested subshells. fg, bg, and wait wont work correctly otherwise

I guess I was just waiting for some interest from a maintainer, since there's not much point in wasting my time on developing this if the maintainers aren't even interested in this feature.

Your knowledge of her character dates from a day or two since. My knowledge of her character dates from the beginning of her life. State your suspicion of her as strongly as you please–it is impossible that you can offend me by doing so. I am sure, beforehand, that (with all your experience) the circumstances have fatally misled you in this case. Mind! I am in possession of no private information. I am as absolutely shut out of my daughter’s confidence as you are. My one reason for speaking positively, is the reason you have heard already. I know my child.”