From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23482 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2001 10:13:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 17 Oct 2001 10:13:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 10833 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2001 10:13:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 16072 Received: (qmail 10815 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2001 10:13:08 -0000 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:13:07 +0100 From: Adam Spiers To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Additional differences between the two branches Message-ID: <20011017111307.B30388@thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk> Reply-To: Adam Spiers Mail-Followup-To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk References: <1011016170817.ZM2406@candle.brasslantern.com> <1011016174144.ZM2804@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: <1011016174144.ZM2804@candle.brasslantern.com>; from schaefer@brasslantern.com on Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 05:41:44PM +0000 X-Home-Page: http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/~adam/ X-OS: RedHat Linux Bart Schaefer (schaefer@brasslantern.com) wrote: > I found a bug in the difflog.pl script when there were repeated entries > for the same article number (e.g. 15060). Here are additional differences > in the "unposted" changes, revealed by re-running the fixed script; I've > edited a bit to remove obviously irrelevant parts. > > I've actually already committed this one, though not yet logged it: > > +2001-08-15 Adam Spiers > > + * unposted: Doc/Zsh/expn.yo: mention the word `greedy' in the > + docs for the S flag, to make it easier to find for those used to > + Perl-speak. Ah, I wondered why mine weren't appearing. Thanks. > +2001-08-17 Adam Spiers > + > + * unposted: Functions/Prompts/prompt_adam2_setup: eliminate > + horrible inefficiencies resulting from avoidable fork()s > > +2001-08-15 Adam Spiers > > + * unposted: Doc/Zsh/compsys.yo: add missing docs for cache-policy > + style. Those would both be perfectly safe to go across, although I think I missed the thread where it was decided what the role of the two branches should be.