Current state of 3.1.2

Current state of 3.1.2

[Wez Furlong]

Hi,

Does anyone have a 'clean' version of zsh 3.1.2 with all the 'official'
patches applied? I have had problems with my email and missed many
patches.

If you have it, please email me.

Thanks.



-- 
Wez - Electronics Undergraduate at the University of York
URL : http://www.twinklestar.demon.co.uk/

Insult Of The Day: Thou ruttish shard-borne clack-dish!

Re: Current state of 3.1.2

[Bruce Stephens]

wjf103@york.ac.uk said:
> Does anyone have a 'clean' version of zsh 3.1.2 with all the 
> 'official' patches applied? I have had problems with my email and 
> missed many patches. 

Is there such a thing as an official patch?  This would be really useful, 
though.  Perhaps keep the zsh-RCS.tar.gz up to date, assuming Zoltan has such 
a thing himself?  (With the caveat that sometimes this would be broken, but 
hackers can live with that.)  Or use some kind of distributed CVS setup, as 
some projects are said to do, where a select group has modify access, but the 
rest of us just get to watch; that's probably more effort than it's worth, 
though.

Perhaps there could be some way of archiving just the patches posted to 
zsh-workers, in an order that they could be applied to the latest test 
version? This would typically just involve those sending patches to put an 
indication in the header of their mail ("Subject: PATCH ...", or something), 
with the occasional intervention needed when people supply incompatible 
patches.

zsh-workers is archived, of course, but last time I tried, it was non-trivial 
to find the patches.

Re: Current state of 3.1.2

[Timothy J Luoma]

	Author:        Bruce Stephens <B.Stephens@isode.com>
	Original-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 15:43:38 +0100
	Message-ID:    <199710081443.KAA27464@math.gatech.edu>

> Perhaps there could be some way of archiving just the patches posted to
> zsh-workers, in an order that they could be applied to the latest test
> version? This would typically just involve those sending patches to put an 
> indication in the header of their mail ("Subject: PATCH ...", or
> something), with the occasional intervention needed when people supply
> incompatible patches.

Maybe I can chime in here.

It would be child's play for me to set this up somewhere under the ZSH web  
page @ PEAK.org (http://www.peak.org/zsh/).  I already have an email-2-html  
setup there.

The easiest way would be if we could agree to send patches to 'zsh@peak.org'  
(another address for me).  That way no one has to remember any special  
Subjects and it would be easy enough to do (just CC that address when you  
send in a patch).
	Upside: no non-Patches would show up, trivial to maintain
	Downside: if you don't remember to send it there, it doesn't get
		added

If it was deemed better to use a certain Subject: header such as PATCH that  
would be fine too
	Upside: only have to remember one address
	Downside: have to remember the right Subject header
	
		TjL
		
		

Archiving patches (Was: Current state of 3.1.2)

[Geoff Wing]

Timothy J Luoma <luomat+zsh+users@luomat.peak.org> typed:
:The easiest way would be if we could agree to send patches to 'zsh@peak.org'  
:(another address for me).  That way no one has to remember any special  
:Subjects and it would be easy enough to do (just CC that address when you  
:send in a patch).
:	Upside: no non-Patches would show up, trivial to maintain
:	Downside: if you don't remember to send it there, it doesn't get
:		added

Downside: lazy/ignorant people don't remove Cc: lines so you get lots of
          followups which aren't always relevant, and you can't just weed out
	  messages which reference other valid patches because they may be
	  patches too.  Then you get lots of people who won't put proper 
	  Subject lines on when the topic changes.

:If it was deemed better to use a certain Subject: header such as PATCH that  
:would be fine too
:	Upside: only have to remember one address
:	Downside: have to remember the right Subject header
-- 
Geoff Wing [mason@primenet.com.au]                   Phone    : +61-3-9818 2977
 Technical Manager: PrimeNet Computer Consultants    Facsimile: +61-3-9768 2909
 Web: <URL:http://www.primenet.com.au/>              Mobile   : 0412 162 441
        [ Boulderdash: <URL:http://ciips.ee.uwa.edu.au/~williams/bd/> ]

Re: Archiving patches (Was: Current state of 3.1.2)

[Andrew Main]

Geoff Wing wrote:
>Downside: lazy/ignorant people don't remove Cc: lines so you get lots of
>          followups which aren't always relevant, and you can't just weed out
>	  messages which reference other valid patches because they may be
>	  patches too.  Then you get lots of people who won't put proper 
>	  Subject lines on when the topic changes.

Do what the NoCeM standard requires: any message whose Subject: line
starts with "Re:" doesn't count.  If in looking for patches one looks
for "Subject: *PATCH:", then replies to patches won't be inadvertantly
matched.

-zefram

Re: Archiving patches (Was: Current state of 3.1.2)

[Timothy J Luoma]

	Author:        mason@primenet.com.au (Geoff Wing)
	Original-Date: 9 Oct 1997 05:53:32 GMT
	Message-ID:    <slrn63osas.sb0.mason@coral.primenet.com.au>

> Downside: lazy/ignorant people don't remove Cc: lines so you get lots of
> followups which aren't always relevant, and you can't just weed out
> messages which reference other valid patches because they may be
> patches too.  Then you get lots of people who won't put proper
> Subject lines on when the topic changes.

True enough.

So I'd only archive the posts which had the subject which began with

PATCH:

so

Re: PATCH

wouldn't be a problem.

However, those who use Novell Groupwise who have decided to change the  
standard and now use:

PATCH -reply

would break it.

TjL

Re: Archiving patches (Was: Current state of 3.1.2)

[Timothy J Luoma]

	Author:        Andrew Main <zefram@tao.co.uk>
	Original-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:33:44 +0100 (BST)
	Message-ID:    <199710090933.KAA20641@taos.demon.co.uk>

> Do what the NoCeM standard requires: any message whose Subject: line
> starts with "Re:" doesn't count.  If in looking for patches one looks
> for "Subject: *PATCH:", then replies to patches won't be inadvertantly

Well, I think this would be the best way:

:0Dw	
*  ^TOzsh@peak\.org
*  ^Subject:[ 	]PATCH
* !^Subject:.* -reply
|email2html

What that basically says, if you can't read procmail, is:

If the message is 'To:' or 'CC:' to zsh@peak.org and the Subject begins with  
an UPPERCASE 'PATCH' (with only a space or tab before the word PATCH) and  
the Subject does not end with ' -reply' (to avoid those nasty Novell people)  
then pipe the message to the email2html program (actually called hypermail).

I'll try to set this up tonight for a beta test.

TjL

Re: Archiving patches (Was: Current state of 3.1.2)

[Andrew Main]

Timothy J Luoma wrote:
>However, those who use Novell Groupwise who have decided to change the  
>standard and now use:
>
>PATCH -reply

Ah, so that's what it is.  I've seen this on another mailing list.
But as no one on the zsh lists uses that[1], it's not a problem.

-zefram

[1] And if anyone did start using it, we'd break their knuckles.

Re: Archiving patches (Was: Current state of 3.1.2)

[Timothy J Luoma]

	Author:        Andrew Main <zefram@tao.co.uk>
	Original-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:55:04 +0100 (BST)
	Message-ID:    <199710091755.SAA27759@taos.demon.co.uk>

> Ah, so that's what it is.  I've seen this on another mailing list.
> But as no one on the zsh lists uses that[1], it's not a problem.
>
> -zefram
>
> [1] And if anyone did start using it, we'd break their knuckles.

Someone gave me this on the procmail list:

SUBJECT=`formail -zxSubject:`
:0
* ^Subject:.*-Reply
{
	SUBJECT=`echo "$SUBJECT" |
	perl -p -e 's/^((Re:\s*)*)?(.*)/Re: \3/i; s/(\s*-reply)*$//i'`

	:0fhw
	|formail -i"Subject: $SUBJECT"
}

That takes care of it nicely ;-)


TjL