On Sunday 16 May 2010 2:19:53 pm Tony Mechelynck wrote: > meaning it is supported but currently not set. My post was not > about Vim's 'relativenumber' option not being supported but > about no "Included patches" in the :version output. Do you > have that "Included patches" line? I don't, so the next time > I report a 7.3a bug it won't be easy for me to say precisely > which patches were or weren't included compared to the first > 7.3a set of sources issued by Bram. And, as I said, saying > that I am "at relative changeset #2193" won't mean a thing, > because every commit that I do (e.g. after a merge, including > those done implicitly by fetch) adds an ordinal number not > present in Bram's repo. Every merge that you commit also adds > one, but I bet we don't do them exactly as frequently, so one > of us will have more changesets than the other in his local > repo, even if we have the exact same set of official patches > included.
forgive me, please, for misunderstanding you, and probably also for snipping in mid-sentence my question now is, what would you have bram do? 7.3 is beta -- he is patching 7.2 -- would you like him to create two sets of patches, each with different names but with the same content? 7.2.434 == 7.3.001 7.2.435 == 7.3.002 7.2.436 == 7.3.003 i believe he does quite enough as it is, and i do not go looking for ways to make it more complicated for him sc -- 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 http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
