From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7830 invoked from network); 12 May 2000 14:17:33 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 12 May 2000 14:17:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 8348 invoked by alias); 12 May 2000 14:17:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 11348 Received: (qmail 8319 invoked from network); 12 May 2000 14:17:20 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000512141707.ZM5599@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:17:07 +0000 In-Reply-To: <0FUF00DEXYURFO@la-la.cambridgesiliconradio.com> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Re: Test (re)numbering" (May 12, 11:08am) References: <0FUF00DEXYURFO@la-la.cambridgesiliconradio.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: Test (re)numbering MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 12, 11:08am, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: Re: Test (re)numbering } } 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 was also operating under the assumption that we were going to start a fresh repository for 4.0, so that the number of renamings is moot from a CVS point of view. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com