From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-33005-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 23951 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2014 16:21:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 33005
Received: (qmail 20587 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2014 16:20:53 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-id: <140814092045.ZM18007@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:20:45 -0700
In-reply-to: <20140814103227.74c7d168@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
 "Re: zsh 5.0.5-dev-2" (Aug 14, 10:32am)
References: <20140812212920.67dcb116@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<29575.1407969294@thecus.kiddle.eu>
	<20140814093442.1a74c5b7@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
	<20140814103227.74c7d168@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: "Zsh Hackers' List" <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: zsh 5.0.5-dev-2
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Aug 14, 10:32am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: zsh 5.0.5-dev-2
}
} > > Can we perhaps just remove or comment out that one error message for a
} > > release?
} > 
} > zsh -fw
} > cd /
} > zsh: path expansion failed, using root directory
} > 
} > We certainly need to do something.  But if this is the only issue, can't
} > it be straightforwardly fixed like this?
} 
} If someone can reassure me that the weird undocumented interaction with
} xbuf bypassing parameter passing starts here --- i.e. we are resetting
} xbuf here, then xsymlinks fiddles with it and this code looks at the
} result --- then I can't see how this change can be wrong as far as it
} goes.  The question is, is there more to it?

I don't have time to compose a more thorough response here, but I think
this may have been discussed in the previous thread.  I'll look at it
again in 10 hours or so if it will help ...