On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:18:01 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello, developers.
I'm planning to commit this news item before =2.1-r90 goes stable.
It's pretty strange, but after the last emerge -1uDN world system
update I lost bash-complition. It was removed
Dnia 2014-11-20, o godz. 11:58:59
Diamond diam...@hi-net.ru napisał(a):
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:18:01 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello, developers.
I'm planning to commit this news item before =2.1-r90 goes stable.
It's pretty strange, but after the last emerge -1uDN
Dnia 2014-11-10, o godz. 22:18:01
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hello, developers.
I'm planning to commit this news item before =2.1-r90 goes stable.
I have rewritten the message to be more user-oriented like Rich
suggested (big thanks to you!) and added a paragraph about
* Michał Górny schrieb am 10.11.14 um 22:18 Uhr:
Hello, developers.
I'm planning to commit this news item before =2.1-r90 goes stable.
I have rewritten the message to be more user-oriented like Rich
suggested (big thanks to you!) and added a paragraph about loading
bashcomp in bashrc.
Please
Dnia 2014-11-11, o godz. 09:53:58
Marc Schiffbauer msch...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
* Michał Górny schrieb am 10.11.14 um 22:18 Uhr:
Hello, developers.
I'm planning to commit this news item before =2.1-r90 goes stable.
I have rewritten the message to be more user-oriented like Rich
suggested
Dnia 2014-11-11, o godz. 09:53:58
Marc Schiffbauer msch...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
* Michał Górny schrieb am 10.11.14 um 22:18 Uhr:
Hello, developers.
I'm planning to commit this news item before =2.1-r90 goes stable.
I have rewritten the message to be more user-oriented like Rich
suggested
* Michał Górny schrieb am 11.11.14 um 12:06 Uhr:
Dnia 2014-11-11, o godz. 09:53:58
Marc Schiffbauer msch...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
* Michał Górny schrieb am 10.11.14 um 22:18 Uhr:
Hello, developers.
I'm planning to commit this news item before =2.1-r90 goes stable.
I have rewritten the
Dnia 2014-10-13, o godz. 12:23:52
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
El lun, 13-10-2014 a las 11:35 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
Please review the following news item.
[...]
The current eselect-bashcomp setup will *not* be migrated. It may be
necessary to rebuild packages
Dnia 2014-10-14, o godz. 02:41:58
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se napisał(a):
Peter Stuge wrote:
There is a severe behavioral penalty!
Rich Freeman wrote:
I really do not want that to be chosen for me.
Well, then all you need to do is tell eselect to disable them, etc.
Well, but see
El lun, 13-10-2014 a las 11:35 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
Please review the following news item.
[...]
The current eselect-bashcomp setup will *not* be migrated. It may be
necessary to rebuild packages installing completions after the upgrade,
and remove old configuration symlinks
On 13/10/14 05:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Please review the following news item.
-
Title: bash-completion-2.1-r90
Author: Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: -MM-DD
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:37:19AM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
On 13/10/14 05:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Please review the following news item.
-
Title: bash-completion-2.1-r90
Author: Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: -MM-DD
Revision: 1
Michał Górny wrote:
the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Why is it desirable to make that change?
//Peter
pgpAbh_XiMjXl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Why is it desirable to make that change?
//Peter
Disregard previous fat-finger reply...
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Why is it desirable to make that change?
See my previous email:
3. Unlike in the past, there is no longer a
Rich Freeman wrote:
the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Why is it desirable to make that change?
there is no longer a performance penalty
There is a severe behavioral penalty!
We think that most users will prefer to just leave everything enabled now.
I really do not want
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
I really do not want that to be chosen for me.
Opt-out is not cool. :(
Well, then all you need to do is tell eselect to disable them, etc.
It always seemed pointless to me that there are a million bash
completion filters
Peter Stuge wrote:
There is a severe behavioral penalty!
Rich Freeman wrote:
I really do not want that to be chosen for me.
Well, then all you need to do is tell eselect to disable them, etc.
Well, but see above - this is a huge change in behavior - I really
don't think that should be done
On Tue Oct 14 03:32:32 2014 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
the new framework is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Why is it desirable to make that change?
there is no longer a performance penalty
There is a severe behavioral penalty!
We think that most
19 matches
Mail list logo
