From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12437 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2015 09:30:51 -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: 20471 Received: (qmail 23013 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2015 09:30:50 -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=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gWHzExvEJUlOx5U0jOz8h1fu48vHUmz0hxt968FYZj4=; b=BaYejT3wTt6nTnrL50FHVsuhAKYULixJ22JsqKAJ1f3nSgC22HGzLGzsh4/h9h2zVO /SQoPJHjqH/HxINNr32mb5WvMGBABvojqmFSotEgnOCA5mi6hY683cF08tEnJrcBd7Qf fyAblmZudFdAqvqWdlQgO8J2fjdAmo51GJFaKrCga+sTuzuB1IsU8GX0ujjUV8Ym2Wmx ocdwForxXyrAKUFX+ZPIVC/OipNPf+6yDNfUBA/uhNZe3YlGjsYmm/51IX1ZspH9i7wc XaLGeZAi+AGGH3Q+B+mMcOepoPfisNy7aFf7HmQ3jf6+awN5hqvL5N+BgLIcdIHj4zI3 MnBQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.141.28.2 with SMTP id f2mr41413485qhe.17.1440581446754; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:30:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150826094849.4704e3f7@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> References: <20150825194807.194b3bed@ntlworld.com> <20150825222245.GA8276@lorien.comfychair.org> <20150826012728.GA23628@lorien.comfychair.org> <20150826094849.4704e3f7@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:30:46 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: zsh 5.0.8.-test-3 From: Mikael Magnusson To: Peter Stephenson Cc: Zsh Users , Danek Duvall Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Peter Stephenson wrote: > 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. That sounds reasonable to me. -- Mikael Magnusson