From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11174 invoked from network); 15 May 2001 10:59:05 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 15 May 2001 10:59:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 13039 invoked by alias); 15 May 2001 10:58:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14349 Received: (qmail 13013 invoked from network); 15 May 2001 10:58:55 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 11:58:51 +0100 From: Adam Spiers To: Zsh Workers Subject: Re: Latest hist-immediate-drop patch Message-ID: <20010515115851.A8529@thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk> Reply-To: Adam Spiers Mail-Followup-To: Zsh Workers References: <010514155811.ZM10321@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from wayned@users.sourceforge.net on Mon, May 14, 2001 at 05:57:47PM -0700 X-Home-Page: http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/~adam/ X-OS: RedHat Linux Wayne Davison (wayned@users.sourceforge.net) wrote: > I've been rather ambivilent about the new option, but I think I'm ready > to side with you on the issue -- this delayed-drop is the way the > history code should have worked in the first place. Both Zefram and > Sven voted for the inclusion of the option, though, which is the "safe" > choice (and everyone else has abstained). I'd be quite happy to remove > the hist_immediate_drop option from my patch if we can reach some sort > of an agreement here. Any changed votes? Any new votes? Or shall I > just take the bull by the horns and decide for us all? FWIW, I like the idea a lot, and I'd be quite happy to see it included with or without the option. Like Bart, I can't imagine anyone being seriously bothered by history hanging around for an extra line.