Hi,
Looking at the Mercurial repo I see 7.3.002 applied twice, but I can't
see 7.3.001 anywhere. At first I suspected only the commit messages
were wrong but it looks like 7.3.002 really has been applied twice.
Björn
--
You received this message from the vim_dev maillist.
Do not top-post!
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:03 AM, björn wrote:
Looking at the Mercurial repo I see 7.3.002 applied twice, but I can't
see 7.3.001 anywhere. At first I suspected only the commit messages
were wrong but it looks like 7.3.002 really has been applied twice.
The changes are different:
Björn Winckler wrote:
Looking at the Mercurial repo I see 7.3.002 applied twice, but I can't
see 7.3.001 anywhere. At first I suspected only the commit messages
were wrong but it looks like 7.3.002 really has been applied twice.
Where do you see this?
When I look online, the version.c
On 17 August 2010 12:27, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Björn Winckler wrote:
Looking at the Mercurial repo I see 7.3.002 applied twice, but I can't
see 7.3.001 anywhere. At first I suspected only the commit messages
were wrong but it looks like 7.3.002 really has been applied twice.
Where do you
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:03 AM, björn wrote:
The changes are different:
vim-hg-working$ hg extdiff -c fde086181841 -p diff -o -qr
Files vim-hg-working.f0915ae869cf/src/ex_docmd.c and
vim-hg-working.fde086181841/src/ex_docmd.c differ
Hi,
This message is intended for those who are pulling from the Git mirror
of the Mercurial repository that I am maintaining [1].
Due to how the Mercurial vim73 branch was forcibly renamed to be the
default branch you need to be careful when next updating your Git
clone. If you try git pull
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Xavier de Gaye wrote:
The 'vim73' branch can be given the name of the 'default' branch with
the 'hg branch --force default' command after the 'default' branch is
named 'vim72' with the 'hg branch vim72' command (both followed by
On 17 August 2010 13:11, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Xavier de Gaye wrote:
The 'vim73' branch can be given the name of the 'default' branch with
the 'hg branch --force default' command after the 'default' branch is
named 'vim72' with
On Aug 16, 4:20 am, James Vega james...@jamessan.com wrote:
Personally, I like the idea of using existing spell-checking libraries
and had spent some time working on allowing the use of libenchant[0]
instead. I wasn't able to get around to finishing it, but it's still on
my list of ideas to
www is deprecated
please check out
http://no-www.org/
On 08/17/2010 03:25 PM, Stefan `Sec` Zehl wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 14:06 -0700, Sergey Avseyev wrote:
Do you know why vim website doesn't respond to 'http://vim.org'? and
responds only 'http://www.vim.org'
Yes. This is by
Patch 7.1.003
Problem:Crash with specific BufWritePost autocmd. (Peter Odding)
Solution: Don't free the quickfix title twice. (Lech Lorens)
Files: src/quickfix.c
*** ../vim-7.3.002/src/quickfix.c 2010-08-15 21:57:26.0 +0200
--- src/quickfix.c 2010-08-16
Michael Wookey wrote:
[cross posting from vim_use to vim_dev...sorry]
On 17 August 2010 10:05, Michael Wookey michaelwoo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 August 2010 09:08, George V. Reilly geo...@reilly.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Eric Tetz erict...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm
Björn Winckler wrote:
On 17 August 2010 13:11, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Xavier de Gaye wrote:
The 'vim73' branch can be given the name of the 'default' branch with
the 'hg branch --force default' command after the 'default'
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Björn Winckler wrote:
I for one would be very happy if the next version (vim74?) used this
scheme (i.e. where all new work happens on the default branch).
In my opinion the default branch should contain the stable version.
Most users
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Christian Brabandt wrote:
Hi Bram!
On Mo, 16 Aug 2010, Christian Brabandt wrote:
Anyway, I noticed another problem. I cannot edit my .vimrc from
within gvim. When writing it, gvim simply crashes.
I found the problem. It can be reproduced on Windows using this
Hi everybody,
gvim -u NONE -U NONE -N -c echo strftime('%a %Y\-%m\-%d %R')
Which gvim version is this with?
With the distributed gvim 7.3 invoked from MS-DOS (in Windows XP),
I get the error.
AppName: gvim.exeAppVer: 7.3.277.0 ModName: gvim.exe
ModVer: 7.3.277.0Offset:
version.c: In function ‘intro_message’:
version.c:1273:7: warning: array subscript is above array bounds
The incriminated line is the test on mediumVersion[4] near the middle of
if (add_version)
{
STRCPY(vers, mediumVersion);
if (highest_patch())
{
/*
Lech Lorens wrote:
On 16-Aug-2010 Peter Odding pe...@peterodding.com wrote:
Lech Lorens wrote:
Recently I've also been having lots of problems with pasting into/from
Vim. So far I haven't figured out what it is that makes pasting
sometimes fail, but it happens to me frequently. If I am
On 18-Aug-2010 raf r...@raf.org wrote:
for me (from the original report), vim definitely looks
like the culprit. i'm using macosx-10.6.4, motif (from
macports) and the X11 that comes with macosx (and a recent
version of xquartz-2.5.2) and twm. given that fixed setup,
vim-7.3 can't copy/paste
Earlier this year, Sergey Khorev posted a patch to all csqf to support
bang arguments. The bang arguments would prevent the cscope query
from automatically jumping to the first result. I was hoping this
patch made it into 7.3, but it doesn't look to have made it. Is it
possible to bring that
Xavier de Gaye wrote:
As there won't be a vimGdb patch for vim73, can you please
also remove:
6. vimGdb
I have updated the patches list:
http://groups.google.com/group/vim_dev/web/vim-patches
I added a brief intro to say that some patches are no longer
listed because they are in Vim 7.3.
21 matches
Mail list logo
