Fritjof, have you let the gnu rcs project know about the segfault?
Maybe see how they choose to fix things and then follow their lead?
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Nicholas Marriott
nicholas.marri...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that GNU RCS segfaulting for -u -l is enough justification to do
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:10:44AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
Fritjof, have you let the gnu rcs project know about the segfault?
Maybe see how they choose to fix things and then follow their lead?
That will only slow things down. Do what -L -U does is better, imo.
-Otto
On Mon,
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:10:44AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
Fritjof, have you let the gnu rcs project know about the segfault?
Maybe see how they choose to fix things and then follow their lead?
That will only slow
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:10:44AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
Fritjof, have you let the gnu rcs project know about the segfault?
Maybe see how they choose to fix things and then follow their lead?
No, I have not.
I hope they follow the tech@ mailing list. :)
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:47
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:34:33AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:10:44AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
Fritjof, have you let the gnu rcs project know about the segfault?
Maybe see how they choose to fix things and then follow their lead?
That will only slow things
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:56:07PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:34:33AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:10:44AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
Fritjof, have you let the gnu rcs project know about the segfault?
Maybe see how they
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:11:28PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:56:07PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:34:33AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:10:44AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
Fritjof, have you let
I think that GNU RCS segfaulting for -u -l is enough justification to do
what we like, so a message (and last flag wins) like -L/-U would be fine
with me.
But if we want to do what they probably meant to happen then better to
match -l -u like Fritjof's diff.
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 12:55:35PM
Hi tech,
the OpenRCS rcs command produces the following output if -l and -u is
used in the same command:
$ rcs -l1.1 -u1.1 foo.txt
RCS file: foo.txt,v
1.1 locked
1.1 unlocked
$ rcs -u1.1 -l1.1 foo.txt
RCS file: foo.txt,v
1.1 locked
1.1 unlocked
I've looked at GnuRCS and it has another way to
The existing behaviour isn't wildly useful, makes sense to me, ok nicm
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:33:33PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Hi tech,
the OpenRCS rcs command produces the following output if -l and -u is
used in the same command:
$ rcs -l1.1 -u1.1 foo.txt
RCS file:
posix commands (like ls(1) for example) keep the last option when mutually
exclusive options are specified. does it make sense to keep rcs consistent with
that convention? also is a man page diff needed?
On Oct 1, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Nicholas Marriott nicholas.marri...@gmail.com
wrote:
The
Matching GNU RCS seems preferable to me but I don't feel strongly about
it.
I wouldn't mention this in the man page, it hardly seems like behaviour
anyone should (or will need to) rely on.
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 07:41:52PM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
posix commands (like ls(1) for example)
OTOH, check out what we do with rcs -L and -U...
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 12:54:13AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
Matching GNU RCS seems preferable to me but I don't feel strongly about
it.
I wouldn't mention this in the man page, it hardly seems like behaviour
anyone should (or will
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Daniel Dickman didick...@gmail.com wrote:
posix commands (like ls(1) for example) keep the last option when mutually
exclusive options are specified.
does it make sense to keep rcs consistent with that convention? also is a man
page diff needed?
RCS predates
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 07:58:16PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Daniel Dickman didick...@gmail.com wrote:
posix commands (like ls(1) for example) keep the last option when mutually
exclusive options are specified.
does it make sense to keep rcs consistent
15 matches
Mail list logo
