From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1176 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2015 08:49:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 20470 Received: (qmail 29688 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2015 08:49:04 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-f794b6d000001495-2c-55dd7d7a04ce Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:48:49 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: Zsh Users Cc: Danek Duvall Subject: Re: zsh 5.0.8.-test-3 Message-id: <20150826094849.4704e3f7@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: References: <20150825194807.194b3bed@ntlworld.com> <20150825222245.GA8276@lorien.comfychair.org> <20150826012728.GA23628@lorien.comfychair.org> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xy7pVtXdDDZr/qVm8b3rJbLHj5EpG ByaPhhdrmT1WHfzAFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJVxbtZWtoKHnBVHHr1kbmC8z97FyM4hIWAi sSmmi5ETyBKTuHBvPVsXIxeHkMBSRok1TxqgnAYmicPXzzCDVAkJbGOU6N5dDmKzCKhKbHjy lxHEZhMwlJi6aTaYLSKgKHHm1zcmEJtZQEPi9+6JLF2MHBzCAnISb66Kg4R5BewlDuw5AFbO KRAs8en9LEaIXQuZJC6d3sYKkuAX0Je4+vcTE8R19hIzr5xhhGgWlPgx+R4LxHwtic3bmlgh bHmJzWveQt2pLnHj7m72CYzCs5C0zELSMgtJywJG5lWMoqmlyQXFSem5RnrFibnFpXnpesn5 uZsYIcH9dQfj0mNWhxgFOBiVeHhnzL8dKsSaWFZcmXuIUYKDWUmE17X4bqgQb0piZVVqUX58 UWlOavEhRmkOFiVx3pm73ocICaQnlqRmp6YWpBbBZJk4OKUaGJXjOx7tu6vy5P+15ZdCIjSP J12clc17/bX//iyRJYKK/3cuFuNxY1v/2b/242r+3zKn5ywXcZjkarJy/beT5jXXxL5d9v18 cuOBrsjn71uPnW9bq1nlo/3L9/KiHtGXrQ42pYxZau88OlZ7rVi47dGhqbsO5b1mtRVT25/8 L/HvD/tMa4G6pi1KLMUZiYZazEXFiQCPRioragIAAA== On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 04:19:45 +0200 Mikael Magnusson wrote: > > FWIW, we do have our man pages online: > > > > http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E36784_01/html/E36874/strftime-3c.html > > > > which documents # and E and O, as well as ^ and _. So I don't know why it > > didn't work, unless the underlying implementation is broken, which is > > entirely possible (and likely enough that I'd say you should just keep the > > test as it is and I'll go make sure the appropriate bug is filed and just > > live with the test failure for now). > > I'll let Peter decide which of those to do then. It's minor enough that I'm not *that* bothered. I have a vague prejudice that releasing something with a test failing, even if it's a "real" failure, is going to cause more trouble than it's worth for something that's not a core part of the shell and which is new anyway. Suppose we apply the test patch now and back it off immediately after the release? The released code is still capable of showing the problem, so this don't make debugging harder. pws -- Peter Stephenson | Principal Engineer Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Email: p.stephenson@samsung.com | Phone: +44 1223 434724 | www.samsung.com