On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Boyko Bantchev wrote:
Your version of digraph.txt is not in the compiled versions of Vim
distributed from vim.org. It is not even in the source packages for
those who would compile Vim themselves.
It is. I provided the patch and Bram committed it to the runtime files
No it isn't, effectively. It is nowhere in the exe or src packages
on http://www.vim.org/download.php or http://www.vim.org/sources.php,
which are what almost all users of Vim use.
[This comes off as more argumentative than I'd intended. The points
that matter are the questions at the end.]
I'd argue that those are not "what almost all users of Vim use".
Definitely not those sources. If you're compiling from source, rather
than using http://www.vim.org/sources.php, current development uses
Mercurial (See: http://www.vim.org/mercurial.php ).
If you're not compiling from source, most O/S distributions add to those
versions the patches that have been released since those were packaged.
E.g. the source package from your second link is for Vim 7.3 (with no
patches). O/S'es that are actively maintained usually have something
much later than that. Gentoo is at >= 7.3.266, OpenSUSE is at >=
7.3.322, MacVIM is currently at 7.3.390 (despite being called "snapshot
64"?), Ubuntu 11.10 has 7.3.154.
Only the Windows-native versions are behind the 7.3.116 patch that's
under discussion: 7.3.46 is the official Windows d/l, and 7.3.107 is the
current Vim-with-Cream, (Cygwin is at >= 7.3.447). So, depending on
what fraction of Vim users are using it under Windows (and not via
Cygwin), it's not "almost all".
Related questions this raises, though:
1. Why are the Windows versions so far behind?
2. Is sources.php even useful? (Why would anyone want to start with
vim-7.3, vim-7.2, or vim-6.4 as a jumping-off point? It'd be much
better to start from "Vim from Mercurial" -- even if only via a
tar.bzip'ed archive rather than via `hg`.)
3. "Vim from CVS" should have a warning similar to what the "Vim from
SVN" has (E.g. "NOTE: Vim 7.3 is not in CVS, use Mercurial instead").
But is there really any reason to keep those pages around?
--
Best,
Ben H
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" 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
