From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6285 invoked from network); 12 May 2000 10:09:40 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 12 May 2000 10:09:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 10103 invoked by alias); 12 May 2000 10:09:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 11344 Received: (qmail 10085 invoked from network); 12 May 2000 10:09:20 -0000 Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:08:52 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Subject: Re: Test (re)numbering In-reply-to: "Your message of Fri, 12 May 2000 09:16:59 -0000." <1000512091659.ZM5110@candle.brasslantern.com> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk (Zsh hackers list) Message-id: <0FUF00DEXYURFO@la-la.cambridgesiliconradio.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Bart wrote > Yes, and we probably should for 4.0 when we also massivly rename in the > Completion subdirectories. I was aiming for minimal renaming for 3.1.7. Renaming twice strikes me as extra horrible from the CVS point of view. I would say either rename to the final thing or not at all. -- Peter Stephenson Cambridge Silicon Radio, Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070