Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 4/27/07, A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> On 4/27/07, Jonathan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
>
>> > - Insane? All is relative. We're only at 7.0.233 as of today.
FYI, Vim
>> > 6.2 went to 532 patches, see http://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/patches/
>
>> Release early, release often :)
> Isn't that what's being done? We're at 7.0.233. That means that
> there's been 233 releases since 7.0. Of course, it all depends on how
> you define release.
These 233 "releases" are incremental and source-only. (Steve Hall's
precompiled installers for Windows are compiled "in an officially
supported
way" from "official sources" yet they are still "unofficial".)
Yes, I know, but the point is that Bram doesn't keep the changes to
himself until he releases 7.1.
The latest full official release with binaries was 7.0.000. To avail
yourself
(as I do) of any of these 233 patchlevels to date (for instance, on
Linux),
you have to, either:
[...]
Or let your package system do it for you, as on Gentoo. Thanks Gentoo!
:-)
nikolai
My package system does it too, but never fast enough for my taste. That's how
I have two versions of Vim here:
/bin/vim (big version without GUI) 7.0.146, compiled by http://www.suse.de/
/usr/local/bin/vim (huge version with GTK2-Gnome GUI) 7.0.233, compiled by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (which includes the latest patches published last
night).
The latter comes of course first in the $PATH.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
Spark's Sixth Rule for Managers:
If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as
if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question
back at him.
