4.0.5 ?

4.0.5 ?

[Borsenkow Andrej]

I ask myself if I should start applying patches to Mandrake 4.0.4 RPM or
is it time for 4.0.5 as bug-fix release. 

Peter, do you have any plans for 4.0.5?

-andrej

Re: 4.0.5 ?

[Peter Stephenson]

Borsenkow Andrej wrote:
> I ask myself if I should start applying patches to Mandrake 4.0.4 RPM or
> is it time for 4.0.5 as bug-fix release. 
> 
> Peter, do you have any plans for 4.0.5?

I usually rely on Bart to decide.  There are probably enough changes to
make it worthwhile, although not necessarily to suggest all existing
users upgrade.

We may want to look for any more changes since 4.0.4 (26th October last
year) to copy across.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************

RE: 4.0.5 ?

[Borsenkow Andrej]

> 
> Borsenkow Andrej wrote:
> > I ask myself if I should start applying patches to Mandrake 4.0.4
RPM or
> > is it time for 4.0.5 as bug-fix release.
> >
> > Peter, do you have any plans for 4.0.5?
> 
> I usually rely on Bart to decide.  There are probably enough changes
to
> make it worthwhile, although not necessarily to suggest all existing
> users upgrade.
> 

Browsing changelog, most are either completion enhancements or obvious
bug fixes. So while there is no requirement to update having better
completion for many commands would not do any harm I guess. 

> We may want to look for any more changes since 4.0.4 (26th October
last
> year) to copy across.
> 

Bart had this magic Perl script to compare changelogs?

-andrej

Re: 4.0.5 ?

[Alexandre Duret-Lutz]

Speaking about patches... any chance to get some eyes on 
16929 (ex 16925) and 16930?
-- 
Alexandre Duret-Lutz

Re: 4.0.5 ?

[Peter Stephenson]

Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> Speaking about patches... any chance to get some eyes on 
> 16929 (ex 16925) and 16930?

I've committed 16930 on both branches.  The environment stuff was
previously improved by Andrej for systems which handled it a bit
strangely, so maybe he knows something about 16925/16929.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************

Re: 4.0.5 ?

[Bart Schaefer]

On Apr 17, 11:56am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} Borsenkow Andrej wrote:
} > Peter, do you have any plans for 4.0.5?
} 
} I usually rely on Bart to decide.

Er, oops, I wasn't thinking about that.

On Apr 17,  5:38pm, Borsenkow Andrej wrote:
} 
} Bart had this magic Perl script to compare changelogs?

It's in CVS in the Util/ directory (not on the patches branch, tho).
I've just been tweaking it a bit again, will commit soon.

There are entries for 229 article numbers (not necessarily 229 log
entries) in the dev ChangeLog that do not appear in the branch log.
(How many do there need to be before we declare 4.2? :-)

108 of them post-date 2001-10-26:

users/4503 users/4483
16988 16956 16955 16933 16927 16923 16913 16911 16906 16895 16879 16862
16849 16847 16842 16838 16831 16823 16821 16819 16803 16789 16779 16776
16774 16769 16767 16755 16751 16748 16737 16711 16710 16708 16697 16689
16688 16678 16676 16673 16672 16669 16668 16667 16625 16620 16619 16618
16609 16582 16577 16555 16553 16527 16515 16503 16494 16492 16489 16487
16486 16483 16472 16464 16448 16443 16437 16426 16423 16422 16418 16417
16407 16406 16398 16397 16393 16372 16361 16357 16353 16352 16349 16347
16346 16345 16330 16325 16323 16320 16310 16258 16255 16254 16253 16247
16241 16228 16224 16198 16197 16177 16176 16174 16172 16158

The rest pre-date 2001-10-26:

users/4157 users/3973
16122 16094 16092 16085 16080 16076 16065 16064 16063 16062 16042 16031
16011 16006 16005 16000 15995 15994 15987 15980 15973 15964 15949 15948
15946 15945 15931 15919 15917 15895 15886 15851 15844 15793 15783 15780
15779 15772 15770 15768 15766 15765 15763 15762 15746 15734 15722 15721
15720 15708 15674 15669 15650 15647 15638 15608 15606 15597 15596 15590
15588 15586 15584 15549 15526 15511 15509 15507 15489 15485 15484 15482
15477 15472 15415 15409 15407 15389 15354 15334 15329 15327 15305 15304
15292 15291 15278 15271 15266 15265 15250 15242 15234 15228 15211 15169
15152 15123 15115 15106 15099 15087 15056 15054 15050 15030 15029 14952
14939 14931 14929 14915 14863 14843 14827 14815 14813 14778 14770

It would appear that users/4157 could be propagated, but I don't know
how much of _man depends on other recent completion changes.  I didn't
look closely at any of the workers articles.

There are 6 on the branch that aren't on the dev trunk.  15577 is the
only one that looks even remotely suspicious.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net   

Re: 4.0.5 ?

[Borsenkow Andrej]

В Срд, 17.04.2002, в 21:24, Bart Schaefer написал:
> There are entries for 229 article numbers (not necessarily 229 log
> entries) in the dev ChangeLog that do not appear in the branch log.
> (How many do there need to be before we declare 4.2? :-)
> 

IMHO there can be no 4.2 unless module dependency problem is fixed
(dynamic modules that depend on other dynamic modules).

To remind - it is impossible to dlopen() a shared object that has
unresolved data objects even on Linux, that currently rules out any
solution that encodes dependencies in binary itself.

Two possible solutions are

- major rewrite that will eliminate external variables completely. It
may even make code cleaner and create basis for some interesting things
(line multiple ZLE instances) as example

- adding external files that are installed together with binary shared
object and describe dependencies for Zsh.


-andrej

Re: 4.0.5 ?

[Oliver Kiddle]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 05:24:07PM +0000, Bart Schaefer wrote:

> It would appear that users/4157 could be propagated, but I don't know
> how much of _man depends on other recent completion changes.  I didn't
> look closely at any of the workers articles.

There are other changes which I would have propagated but for the fact
that some completion functions have diverged a bit. _mount is one
particular example where to *easily* merge a bug fix, I'd have had to
merge a pile of other changes so I was lazy and left the bug.

> There are 6 on the branch that aren't on the dev trunk.  15577 is the
> only one that looks even remotely suspicious.

15577 wouldn't be applicable to to dev trunk as it is effectively a
subset of 15574 which went only on the dev branch.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:46:59PM +0400, Borsenkow Andrej wrote:
> ? ???, 17.04.2002, ? 21:24, Bart Schaefer ???????:
> > There are entries for 229 article numbers (not necessarily 229 log
> > entries) in the dev ChangeLog that do not appear in the branch log.
> > (How many do there need to be before we declare 4.2? :-)
> 
> IMHO there can be no 4.2 unless module dependency problem is fixed
> (dynamic modules that depend on other dynamic modules).

>From the perspective that the current dev branch is almost as stable
as 4.0 it would make some sense to declare a 4.2 to allow the users
to benefit from those 229 changes. If we hold out for big changes,
they may not happen for a while and then they'll take a while to
stabilise. I don't think the long 3.0 - 4.0 gap was ideal.

> To remind - it is impossible to dlopen() a shared object that has
> unresolved data objects even on Linux, that currently rules out any
> solution that encodes dependencies in binary itself.

Would it work on platforms like Linux to link modules against those
they depend. Using external files would be ugly but I'd mind less if
they were only needed on some platforms.

Oliver

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.

RE: 4.0.5 ?

[Borsenkow Andrej]

> Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> > Speaking about patches... any chance to get some eyes on
> > 16929 (ex 16925) and 16930?
> 
> I've committed 16930 on both branches.  The environment stuff was
> previously improved by Andrej for systems which handled it a bit
> strangely, so maybe he knows something about 16925/16929.
> 

I meant to answer but forgot. I prefer to not exporting zputenv(); it
was meant as internal wrapper only. The proper function to add
environment is actually addenv(). Zputenv() does not free old string; it
does not matter in this case (as we are going to exec/exit anyway) but
if it is exported people could start using it.

-andrej

RE: 4.0.5 ?

[Borsenkow Andrej]

> >
> > IMHO there can be no 4.2 unless module dependency problem is fixed
> > (dynamic modules that depend on other dynamic modules).
> 
> From the perspective that the current dev branch is almost as stable
> as 4.0 it would make some sense to declare a 4.2 to allow the users
> to benefit from those 229 changes. 

I am not sure if they necessarily benefit from them. I did not analyze
every article but at least some changes are related to code rearranging;
I guess most real bug fixes and new completion functions did go into
4.0.


> If we hold out for big changes,
> they may not happen for a while and then they'll take a while to
> stabilise. I don't think the long 3.0 - 4.0 gap was ideal.
> 

Then please put current state of affairs into BUGS. It is bug after all.

> > To remind - it is impossible to dlopen() a shared object that has
> > unresolved data objects even on Linux, that currently rules out any
> > solution that encodes dependencies in binary itself.
> 
> Would it work on platforms like Linux to link modules against those
> they depend. Using external files would be ugly but I'd mind less if
> they were only needed on some platforms.
> 

I am not sure what do you mean. Several modules in one shared object?
This requires even more changes.

I see that nobody (me including) is happy with extra files and nobody is
going to undertake major rewrite :-) I do not have much spare time
currently, but I still hope to find some automatic way to replace all
variables with functions.

-andrej

Re: 4.0.5 ?

[Bart Schaefer]

On Apr 25, 12:07pm, Borsenkow Andrej wrote:
}
} > Would it work on platforms like Linux to link modules against those
} > they depend. Using external files would be ugly but I'd mind less if
} > they were only needed on some platforms.
} 
} I am not sure what do you mean. Several modules in one shared object?

No, not several modules in one shared object.

On some platforms (I'm not sure what proportion) it's possible to link
two shared objects that have a dependency such that when one of them is
dynamically loaded, the loader discoveres the dependency and also loads
the second shared object.  E.g. libXt depends on libX11, so if the final
binary is explicitly linked with -lXt it is implicitly linked with -lX11
as well.  This does not mean that libXt and libX11 are the same .so.

} I still hope to find some automatic way to replace all variables with
} functions.

The difficult part is replacing assignments with calls to set the value.
I can think of a way using setup-time function calls and static decls to
(relatively) automatically deal with read-only access, but it's going to
take a search of the code and hand editing to fix assignments.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net   

Re: 4.0.5 ?

[Wayne Davison]

I'd like to apply my zmv -W option to the 4.0-patches branch.  Any
objections?

..wayne..

Re: 4.0.5 ?

[Peter Stephenson]

Wayne Davison wrote:
> I'd like to apply my zmv -W option to the 4.0-patches branch.  Any
> objections?

You might as well, seeing as it isn't going to break the shell.

pws

Re: 4.0.5 ?

[Wayne Davison]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> Wayne Davison wrote:
> > I'd like to apply my zmv -W option to the 4.0-patches branch.  Any
> > objections?
>
> You might as well, seeing as it isn't going to break the shell.

Cool.  I also committed your zmv patch (15720) and put your name over
the entry in the branch ChangeLog.  I hope that's OK (if it's not, I can
change it).

..wayne..