From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10432 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2014 08:45:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 32581 Received: (qmail 13428 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2014 08:45:32 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-b7fae6d000004d6d-f6-535a1e4ef784 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:35:25 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: zsh got stuck without any message because of history lock file Message-id: <20140425093525.3754a495@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <140424220232.ZM11424@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <53594068.4040503@googlemail.com> <140424100228.ZM10689@torch.brasslantern.com> <140424220232.ZM11424@torch.brasslantern.com> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuplluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42I5/e/4FV0/uahgg9NPRSwONj9kcmD0WHXw A1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxsVF7awFO1kqjhw5xNjAeIK5i5GTQ0LARKLtTBMjhC0mceHe erYuRi4OIYGljBKvl55nAUkICSxnkrg4wRTEZhFQlXh14iBYA5uAocTUTbPBbBEBcYmzayHq hQW8JZ5tugRm8wrYS/x9t5AJxOYUsJI4caObCWJBL6PEyokvwa7gF9CXuPr3ExPEFfYSM6+c YYRoFpT4Mfke2CBmAS2JzduaWCFseYnNa94yT2AUmIWkbBaSsllIyhYwMq9iFE0tTS4oTkrP NdIrTswtLs1L10vOz93ECAnCrzsYlx6zOsQowMGoxMO7wigyWIg1say4MvcQowQHs5II7wyJ qGAh3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJDjEwcnFINjN7MG69caGgRCP7IHHNRTScrqeCL/YxMg6rZN4MD a9nurVGap3k8y0Xiuf7viLh+8zmexWVan7W2PIyd8Mty7XKZcOfZIhpzHKO4I5V6Cze8UuLx qNS+WW1VIKwQe2/Frb9b5SN2GLsWS16KPrnonWGEtAFv039Ww9S+7uX+Fn+mxmqZ1+oqsRRn JBpqMRcVJwIAVd09YCACAAA= On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 22:02:32 -0700 Bart Schaefer wrote: > However, this would mean that every zsh that is accessing the same > HISTFILE has to be using the same locking options. Is that OK? Sounds highly plausible. It's hard to construct an argument where locking a single file with multiple different mechanisms is the right answer. It's fairly easy to get inconsistent shell options, however. I suppose we could think about simple tests to see if it looks like it's been locked a different way and print a warning. pws