From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26825 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2005 22:53:47 -0000 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 18 Mar 2005 22:53:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 81073 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2005 22:53:41 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 18 Mar 2005 22:53:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 16636 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2005 22:53:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 21018 Received: (qmail 16621 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2005 22:53:37 -0000 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 18 Mar 2005 22:53:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 80804 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2005 22:53:37 -0000 Received: from dsl3-63-249-88-2.cruzio.com (HELO dot.blorf.net) (63.249.88.2) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 18 Mar 2005 22:53:34 -0000 Received: by dot.blorf.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E1485AB59; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:53:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:53:32 -0800 From: Wayne Davison To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: revisiting history-file rewriting Message-ID: <20050318225332.GC7372@blorf.net> References: <20050316204059.GA1298@blorf.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050316204059.GA1298@blorf.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 on a.mx.sunsite.dk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Hits: -2.6 On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:40:59PM -0800, Wayne Davison wrote: > This makes me want to get approval on a better version of my history- > rewriting patch and get it into 4.2.5. OK, I've incorporated the feedback and committed a slightly modified version of the original patch that changed the option to be HIST_SAVE_BY_COPY (enabled by default) and documented it a little better. I did not change the use of $HISTFILE.new for the copy's filename because I think that this will help to avoid extra directory droppings (of history temp-files) from accumulating. If folks disagree with that decision, we can always check in a patch similar to the one I posted earlier. So, do we want this in 4.2.5? I'm not sure if the folks that responded were approving of this part of the check-in or not. ..wayne..