From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-users-return-20474-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 19778 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2015 08:55:45 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Users List <zsh-users.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-users@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-users-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 20474
Received: (qmail 1627 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2015 08:55:44 -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-f794b6d000001495-2d-55e01fac0061
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:45:29 +0100
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: Zsh Users <zsh-users@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: zsh 5.0.8.-test-3
Message-id: <20150828094529.40729cf2@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to:
 <CAHYJk3QGudJqqkYqv4Fi3fF9bV2JUz3h6uM_iUdyTb2qK-ygjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150825194807.194b3bed@ntlworld.com>
 <20150825222245.GA8276@lorien.comfychair.org>
 <CAHYJk3RMe2pekY36WRgXdPhmD6Zhn9NRraNP9jpF2OMFzcxu2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150826012728.GA23628@lorien.comfychair.org>
 <CAHYJk3R82p1XE+cS56uqSf3QfcB_NO8YF4rE74vkRTq-H-7wAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150826094849.4704e3f7@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <CAHYJk3QGudJqqkYqv4Fi3fF9bV2JUz3h6uM_iUdyTb2qK-ygjQ@mail.gmail.com>
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+NgFjrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xq7pr5B+EGixYo26x4+RKRgdGj1UH
	PzAFMEZx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZUz79YGlYAdbxa1Z25gaGDtYuxg5OSQETCTeHHrJDmGLSVy4
	t56ti5GLQ0hgKaPE7wmToJxpTBKXD0xnhnC2MUpsmXeEEaSFRUBV4vr+iWCj2AQMJaZumg0W
	FxFQlDjz6xtTFyMHh7CAnMSbq+IgYV4Be4lpLXeYQGxOgWCJ92cfsELMnMcs8fviN7BefgF9
	iat/PzFBnGQvMfPKGUaIZkGJH5PvsYDYzAJaEpu3NbFC2PISm9e8ZQaxhQTUJW7c3c0+gVFo
	FpKWWUhaZiFpWcDIvIpRNLU0uaA4KT3XSK84Mbe4NC9dLzk/dxMjJGy/7mBceszqEKMAB6MS
	D6/FhvuhQqyJZcWVuYcYJTiYlUR4Q4QehArxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9ilOZgURLnnbnrfYiQ
	QHpiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qBUbk3p65ra2xhfWPNXovc1UdPck3mTp9q9eSaS+D2fX5p5idS
	mrtMn/SyzLt0pSQ3j2WZ8YRbS9gmfeFdfey024zGiepmDcvvTrmvIeDEeGpqJOck/ceS7yK2
	i8rc/XTs99kb+34cn31IJ3dNXsOMqbO4Z6uGbnn4PLrqyL/H2k5i+21SxL7duKTEUpyRaKjF
	XFScCAAUE6SlVwIAAA==

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:30:46 +0200
Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> That sounds reasonable to me.

I've applied this change for now.

I intend to make a release some time over the weekend unless someone
comes up with something major.  (I'm not going away for the bank holiday
week following, so this isn't a traditional time for a release, but
it'll do.)

pws