Here are some thoughts for a group-managed repo.
It must be simple for the group managers, and for file
maintainers, and for Bram. It must also be simple for anyone to
report a problem or make a suggestion.
It should be similar to the existing Vim repo, and Mercurial
should be available just as
What directories should the group manage?
A possibility is below, although it may be too ambitious. It
shows all first-level directories under runtime, with some to
be managed by a group, and the remainder run directly by Bram.
The files in 'runtime' would NOT be part of the group repo, but
all
What sign of modifier do you want against :8 ? :l ?
Or new function?
On Monday, May 21, 2012 1:50:15 AM UTC+9, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Yasuhiro Matsumoto wrote:
I'm working this but I can't get solved yet.
vim_FullName can't get original filename.
'c:/docume~1/mattn' is full path.
Ok, I could fix it.
diff -r d915c19ad092 src/gui.c
--- a/src/gui.c Fri May 18 21:54:13 2012 +0200
+++ b/src/gui.c Mon May 21 10:39:49 2012 +0900
@@ -102,6 +102,12 @@
else
#endif
{
+ /*
+ * If there is 'f' in 'guioptions' and specify -g argument,
+
By the way, ./src/vim -g -u NONE works perfectly.
I guess the backtrace is no longer necessary (?)
Ah, sorry. no need to do it. thanks.
--
You received this message from the vim_dev maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit
Yasuhiro Matsumoto wrote:
What sign of modifier do you want against :8 ? :l ?
Or new function?
Currently :p turns any path into a full path, so that when two names are
expanded with :p they can be compared to find out if they are equal.
Except for symlinks, that requires using resolve().
So
On Monday, May 21, 2012 2:11:13 AM UTC-5, JohnBeckett wrote:
Ben Fritz has pointed out that a second independent repo could
be created (vim-runtime-dev?) where any maintainer or other
interested party could be given access for hg push. Then
reviewers could pull changes into the stable
On Monday, May 21, 2012 2:11:13 AM UTC-5, JohnBeckett wrote:
What directories should the group manage?
A possibility is below, although it may be too ambitious. It
shows all first-level directories under runtime, with some to
be managed by a group, and the remainder run directly by Bram.
On Saturday, May 19, 2012 4:16:13 PM UTC-5, Ernie Rael wrote:
1. I want to maintain all changes to my file. Please don't touch it beyond
what I send you. I commit to be responsive enough for this to work.
2. I want to do all big changes and feature additions, but small
changes
Hello Bram,
Excerpt from Bram Moolenaar:
-- snip --
Attached patches add @Spell to the the syntax files
runtime/syntax/{bc,cmake,expect,mmix,spice,vhdl,xpm2}.
I tried to contact the maintainers but their emails
bounce for all those 7 syntax files.
I'll wait a few days, if nobody objects
Hello Gary,
Excerpt from Gary Johnson:
-- snip --
Would you be willing to set up a repository for us?
I'd be willing if I knew how, but I've never done that.
My expertise in this filed isn't large either. But thanks for helping anyway.
Regards,
Gary
--
Regards,
Thilo
Thomas Köhler wrote:
Hi Thilo,
snip
BTW, some files might not be changed because there is not much need.
I last changed uil.vim and prolog.vim in 2009 to support some new
feature available in vim (and uil.vim yesterday due to
Dominique's patch for @Spell support), and before that, I think I
Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
snip
The hard part of supporting a given language in Vim is the first step:
writing the syntax file in the first place. Once there's a
relatively-complete syntax file (and most of the syntax files included
in Vim are fairly mature), the changes to that syntax file
Hello Ben and John,
Excerpt from Ben Fritz:
-- snip --
The files in 'runtime' would NOT be part of the group repo, but
all files in each listed directory (and subdirectories) would be
part of the group repo.
runtime (group)
+--autoload
+--colors
+--compiler
+--ftplugin
Hello Charles,
Excerpt from Charles Campbell:
-- snip --
Perhaps there could be an automated annual email such as:
---
Hello!
Thank you for your maintaining of runtimefile.vim. The Vim community
greatly appreciates your work.
This is an automated annual
Hello John,
Excerpt from John Beckett:
I am all with you here. I just want to add a note. see below.
Here are some thoughts for a group-managed repo.
It must be simple for the group managers, and for file
maintainers, and for Bram. It must also be simple for anyone to
report a problem or
On Monday, May 21, 2012 12:59:47 PM UTC-5, Thilo Six wrote:
How about setting up an independent repo (not a clone) at
http://vim-runtime.googlecode.com/
Code license: GNU GPL v2
runtimefiles are all (or better they all should be) licensed under Vim
licences.
Yeah, but Google Code only
Thilo Six wrote:
Excerpt from Bram Moolenaar:
-- snip --
Attached patches add @Spell to the the syntax files
runtime/syntax/{bc,cmake,expect,mmix,spice,vhdl,xpm2}.
I tried to contact the maintainers but their emails
bounce for all those 7 syntax files.
I'll wait a few days, if
Hello Bram,
Excerpt from Bram Moolenaar:
-- snip --
No objection here but a question. There are allready some more email adresses
that bounced.
I am in favour of changing the email address to vim-dev. The current
noted email address is broken anyway and therefore useless. If those
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
What sign of modifier do you want against :8 ? :l ?
Or new function?
Currently :p turns any path into a full path, so that when
two names are expanded with :p they can be compared to find
out if they are equal.
Except for symlinks, that requires using resolve().
So
If :p (on Windows) always produced the expanded long name, then
:p:8 could be used if someone wanted the short full path.
No.
:echo fnamemodify('C:\Program Files', ':8:p')
C:\PROGRA~1
I can't see a reason someone would need an 8.3 name expanded
to anything other than its full long path
mattn wrote:
If :p (on Windows) always produced the expanded long name, then
:p:8 could be used if someone wanted the short full path.
No.
:echo fnamemodify('C:\Program Files', ':8:p')
C:\PROGRA~1
If there is a problem, please spell it out as the above is
correct.
I can't see a reason
If there is a problem, please spell it out as the above is correct.
I don't know how many bugs about short name in vim.
I found a bug about home_replace() in the first, In next, I found
fnamemodify().
home_replace() is used in :scriptnames, or fnamemodify(x, ':~') or etc.
Or do you mean You
23 matches
Mail list logo
