[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > If two different shells will try to write history into one single file, > > are they doomed to give bad results, one way or another... > Not necessarily. If both shells use a single write() syscall on an > O_APPEND file, they should work as expected to my awareness. We are miscommunicating. The way you expect it to work is, in my opinion, a bad result -- various histories interspersed. It seems to me that the crucial thing is for each Bash process to have its own separate history. Do you think that behavior would be bad? > If a bash process decides to rotate the history file as a result of > HISTSIZE, and another bash process decides to do the same, one of their > new history entries would be lost due to the other one overriding it. > This would be a bug. Only if they share one single history file. If each has its own history file, each can handle it as if it were your only Bash process. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
