Doug Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to ease the need for the guessing out as well by cleaning
> up the parts of code that rely on it. So far, 90% of it points into
> vmh.c, which is a bit of a mess. Worse, I've never actually seen vmh
> running, so I don't know how it should look, other than the
> description in the man page. I'd almost say we should just chuck it,
> since it hasn't even been part of the build (it's commented out in
> the Makefile), but removing it just because it isn't currently used
> feels too much like justification for not fixing it.
I just ran the vmh that comes with my AIX system, and it didn't look that
spectacular. I not a big fan of any of the [n]mh front ends, but I'd guess
that any of the ones that have been kept up-to-date are more usable than
vmh. vmh did look nicer than plain msh, though, and we still keep _that_
around, so...
> One other note, if you check out the main cvs archive, and not the
> 1.0.1 branch, you've got the development version, which is not
> necessarily stable.
Please bear with me, as I'm a CVS beginner, but I don't know which branch I
have checked out. I just did what it says to do on the web page:
% cvs -d [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs checkout nmh
Which version of the archive does this check out? How would one check out
the other version? Perhaps this information should be added to cvs.html for
other CVS newbies that may come along.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkless | To prevent SPAM contamination, please do not post this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | private email address to the USENET or WWW. Thank you.
