> The procedure is straightforward: Bram M decides whether a patch goes > into the vim source.
When I asked Bram about that particular patch he said that there were some problems with it and that he waited for a new version that solves these issues. These problems were reported by the author of the patch, which IIRC was originally written for version 7.0. Back then, this sounded reasonable to me because I've seen those very same error messages the author has reported. But I've seen those messages also with an unpatched version of vim and I haven't got one of those messages after some "regular" patch to the 7.0 source base. Ever since the patch has worked flawlessly for me and I personally don't think it's totally out of question (but that's just a personal theory/ hypothesis) that those error messages where a problem of a vanilla vim 7.0 rather than a problem of the patch. Anyway, there seems to be no way to report success/failures with certain patches in a systematic manner that would allow Bram to get an adequate overview of how many people use a certain patch with which version (incl patch level) of vim and how many of those people experience problems that can be reproduced so that we know for sure that the problem is actually caused by the patch etc. Otherwise the patch authors (I didn't contribute a patch so this is just another "personal theory") probably get frustrated, they abandon vim, they stop maintaining their patches with the consequence that their patches are likely to quickly become unusable since the development of vim continues. Regards, Tom -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
