From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14188 invoked from network); 21 Dec 1996 16:56:53 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by coral.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 21 Dec 1996 16:56:53 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA09801; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 11:29:22 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 11:29:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612211629.LAA25243@redwood.skiles.gatech.edu> To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Default option settings In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 22 Dec 1996 00:53:16 +1100." <19961221135316.12468.qmail@primenet.com.au> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 11:29:16 -0500 From: Richard Coleman Resent-Message-ID: <"3amGX3.0.1P2.X11lo"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2608 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu > :I think that we should make the default zsh option settings more > :user-frendly. Here are my candidates which may be turned on by default: > :LIST_TYPES AUTO_LIST LIST_AMBIGUOUS ALWAYS_LAST_PROMPT AUTO_MENU > :AUTO_PARAM_KEYS AUTO_REMOVE_SLASH AUTO_PARAM_SLASH APPEND_HISTORY NO_HUP > :Of course option settings are a question of taste. Not everyone will like > :it but I think most of us agree that the current defaults are quite > :inconvinient. > > I have most of these set in my global zshrc, but one I don't support as a > default option is NO_HUP. If people know enough to want it, fine - but for > the average user I don't believe it should be automatically enabled. > If people exit/hang up, their programs should get a HUP signal. That's > the whole point of the system. If they want to keep things around, they > should use disown (like me) or set NO_HUP themselves. I have to agree. NO_HUP should not be on by default. Too many of my users log out and expect their apps to be killed for them. But the other options seem ok. Also, Zoltan, I noticed you named the new beta as just zsh-3.1.0. You should probably call it something like zsh-3.1-beta1, or put it in a testing subdirectory. I expect plenty of people will not realize it's a beta version. Many people will not see that it's symlink'ed to zsh-beta and install it as a production version. (We all know there are plenty of incompetent sysadmins out there). rc