From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22857 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1999 16:42:46 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 29 Apr 1999 16:42:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 10972 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 1999 16:22:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6157 Received: (qmail 10961 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1999 16:22:24 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990429092208.ZM8533@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:22:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <9904290817.AA34380@ibmth.df.unipi.it> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Re: zsh dies (3.1.5-pws-16)" (Apr 29, 10:17am) References: <9904290817.AA34380@ibmth.df.unipi.it> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: Peter Stephenson , zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: zsh dies (3.1.5-pws-16) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 29, 10:17am, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: Re: zsh dies (3.1.5-pws-16) } } Tatsuo Furukawa wrote: } > Hello, zsh developers. I found another bug. } > } > I didn't make patch to fix this problem. Because, Bart Schaefer said } > that zsh 3.1.X's resize code is older than 3.0.X's (NOTE 1). And, } > 3.0.6-pre-2 does not have the problem. So, I think 3.1.X's resize } > code should be changed into 3.0.X's. (I can help to making patch!) } } This is so complicated I'm unhappy about ripping the code from one to the } other without being told what's really going on, if anyone knows. } } - What happened to the patch 4447 (from Bart) that was supposed to make } 3.0.5 believe SIGWINCH signals? Shouldn't that be in 3.0.6? What happened to it was that I never applied it to my local copy of zsh because I wasn't having the problem it fixed, and I was at that time leaving it up to Zefram to decide whether to include patches in the official versions. Consequently, I missed it when making up the -pre-X patches. I'll get it into -pre-3, as it looks like there needs to be one more round of testing anyway. } - Where did the code change between 3.0 and 3.1 originate anyway (and why)? As best I can tell, the change was put into 3.0 after the split for 3.1 and then simply never propagated into 3.1. Cf. zsh-workers 4919, 5301. } It's all mixed in with little changes like moving the } definitions of the LINES and COLUMNS variables from hashtable.h to } params.c. I suspect that's why Zoltan and/or Zefram never got around to duplicating this and other changes. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com