Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Glenn Burkhardt 
Are you still sheparding this project?  I remembered to look at 

http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/nmh

I noticed that there are outstanding bugs - I haven't had a chance to look
at the reports.  Do you need help with them?

Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Ken Hornstein 
Are you still sheparding this project?  I remembered to look at 

Rather poorly, but yes (well, I just got back from a two week vacation in
Europe).

http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/nmh

I noticed that there are outstanding bugs - I haven't had a chance to look
at the reports.  Do you need help with them?

Yes, please.  If you want to sign up as an nmh developer, I will gladly add
you to the project right after you tell me your savannah userid :-)

--Ken

Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Ken Hornstein 
Hi.  Seems like we've had a 1.1 release candidate sitting for a long
time.  Can we make it a release yet?  It would be nice to have something
newer than 1.0.4 going into things like Linux distributions.

Hm, well ... how about everyone (including me) makes sure what's on the
1.1 branch compiles on all of the major platforms that they have access
to, and if the answer is yes, then we call the head of the 1.1 branch
1.1 final ?

--Ken

Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Jon Steinhart 
I have it working on Solaris (albeit an old 2.6) and Linux RH9.

 Hi.  Seems like we've had a 1.1 release candidate sitting for a long
 time.  Can we make it a release yet?  It would be nice to have something
 newer than 1.0.4 going into things like Linux distributions.
 
 Hm, well ... how about everyone (including me) makes sure what's on the
 1.1 branch compiles on all of the major platforms that they have access
 to, and if the answer is yes, then we call the head of the 1.1 branch
 1.1 final ?
 
 --Ken

Re: A semi-annual poke about progress

2003-06-03 Thread Neil W Rickert 
Glenn Burkhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Clues on what the test for 'broken vi' does are solicited.

The vi on some systems (including solaris) returns a non-zero
exit status if any command at all failed during the vi session.

Presumably this makes sense if vi is running in the background
from a response file.

Anyway, nmh ignores vi exit codes on such systems.

 -NWR