On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 05:08:20PM +0100, Bj?rn Kautler wrote:
>Ok, so you are telling me that it is "nothing" if a small - probably
>unintended - change breaks the whole vim functionality? o_O
>Especially if there is a fix as small as the erroneous change?
>C'mon, you're kidding me, aren't you?
M
Ok, so you are telling me that it is "nothing" if a small - probably
unintended - change breaks the whole vim functionality? o_O
Especially if there is a fix as small as the erroneous change?
C'mon, you're kidding me, aren't you?
Whatever, I'll NOT continue on this topic.
I have a working workarou
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:40:19PM +0100, Bj?rn Kautler wrote:
>If you mean. "Let's focus on the small bug Bj?rn reported instead of
>talking about vi vs. vim", I'm absolutely on your side Christopher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com
If you mean. "Let's focus on the small bug Björn reported instead of
talking about vi vs. vim", I'm absolutely on your side Christopher.
2013/12/9 Christopher Faylor:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 03:03:37PM +0100, Frank Fesevur wrote:
>>2013/12/9 Corinna Vinschen:
>>> The new vim layout closely refle
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 03:03:37PM +0100, Frank Fesevur wrote:
>2013/12/9 Corinna Vinschen:
>> The new vim layout closely reflects the Fedora packaging. It has a
>> minimal vi in the vim-minimal package and a full-featured vim in the
>> vim-enhanced package. I'm using a vi -> vim alias on Fedora
The special handling of vi is just fine.
The whole problem is that not only the vi behaviour changed, but also
the vim behaviour.
Which is why I suggested the solutions I suggested.
2013/12/9 Frank Fesevur :
> 2013/12/9 Björn Kautler:
>> Again, what I talk about is NOT an issue of vi vs. vim.
>> W
2013/12/9 Björn Kautler:
> Again, what I talk about is NOT an issue of vi vs. vim.
> What I talk about is a breaking change in vim that was introduced
> while doing a change for vi.
> But it is NOT an issue of vi vs. vim.
That patch was introduced when people started to complain that they
got erro
2013/12/9 Corinna Vinschen:
> The new vim layout closely reflects the Fedora packaging. It has a
> minimal vi in the vim-minimal package and a full-featured vim in the
> vim-enhanced package. I'm using a vi -> vim alias on Fedora for ages.
That explains why Yaakov did this. I assume Yaakov is a
Again, what I talk about is NOT an issue of vi vs. vim.
What I talk about is a breaking change in vim that was introduced
while doing a change for vi.
But it is NOT an issue of vi vs. vim.
Here again my original mail:
Hi Yaakov,
I'm wondering that noone mentioned it before, but maybe everyone is
On Dec 9 13:34, Frank Fesevur wrote:
> 2013/12/9 Björn Kautler:
> > I don't have a problem with being mean.
> > Everyone makes mistakes.
> > I just wonder that it gets broken silently without obvious (to me) reason
> > and a question regarding it and with two proposed solutions just stays
> > igno
I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you mean.
Alternatives are not a problem to me.
The patch I mentioned originally changes the file where the full vim
looks for its configuration file.
And beause of the missing configuration file at the new place, the
full vim behaves as if it were the
2013/12/9 Björn Kautler:
> I don't have a problem with being mean.
> Everyone makes mistakes.
> I just wonder that it gets broken silently without obvious (to me) reason
> and a question regarding it and with two proposed solutions just stays
> ignored while it would be very easy to fix.
To me, th
Hi Frank,
I don't have a problem with being mean.
Everyone makes mistakes.
I just wonder that it gets broken silently without obvious (to me) reason
and a question regarding it and with two proposed solutions just stays
ignored while it would be very easy to fix.
Regards
Björn
2013/12/9 Frank F
2013/12/7 Björn Kautler:
> And it is ok and accepted that such a patch breaks the functionality?
Apparently that depends on the maintainer.
One maintainer does his best not to break existing installations:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-12/msg00059.html
And another introduces a new version
htt
On Dec 6 20:04, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 03:48:33PM -0800, Gary Johnson wrote:
> >(Please correct me if I've misstated the relationships between Red
> >Hat, Fedora and Cygwin.)
>
> This isn't a Red Hat project. It's an open source project staffed by
> volunteers like Y
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 03:48:33PM -0800, Gary Johnson wrote:
>On 2013-12-06, Bj?rn Kautler wrote:
>
>> 2013/12/6 Christopher Faylor:
>> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 06:07:17PM +0100, Bj?rn Kautler wrote:
>> >>Do my messages come through at all?
>> >>No-one answers or cares about this one. :-(
>> >
>>
And it is ok and accepted that such a patch breaks the functionality?
Before the patch it was /etc/vim/vimrc and after the patch it was
/etc/vimrc which is not found and thus causes unexpected behaviour.
Shouldn't then at least a symlink be added at /etc/vimrc that points
to the old /etc/vim/vimrc
On 2013-12-06, Björn Kautler wrote:
> 2013/12/6 Christopher Faylor:
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 06:07:17PM +0100, Bj?rn Kautler wrote:
> >>Do my messages come through at all?
> >>No-one answers or cares about this one. :-(
> >
> > Either it is this:
> > 1) http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#WJM
> >
> > O
Hi Christopher,
thanks for your reply.
Do you really think it could be 2)?
I didn't ask a question like "hey somehting is not working".
But rather I found out where the problem is in the code and provided
two proposed fixes, not knowing which one is appropriate.
It is totally not depending on my i
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 06:07:17PM +0100, Bj?rn Kautler wrote:
>Do my messages come through at all?
>No-one answers or cares about this one. :-(
Either it is this:
1) http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#WJM
Or maybe this:
2) http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Or maybe it is that this is a question has been
Do my messages come through at all?
No-one answers or cares about this one. :-(
2013/9/16 Björn Kautler :
> Hi Yaakov,
>
> is this fixed in the new Vim release?
>
> Regards
>
> 2013/8/13 Björn Kautler :
>> Hi Yaakov,
>>
>> I'm wondering that noone mentioned it before, but maybe everyone is using
Hi Yaakov,
is this fixed in the new Vim release?
Regards
2013/8/13 Björn Kautler :
> Hi Yaakov,
>
> I'm wondering that noone mentioned it before, but maybe everyone is using
> ~/.vimrc or they were not as puzzled as me and tried to find out what went
> wrong.
>
> After updating to your latest
Hi Yaakov,
I'm wondering that noone mentioned it before, but maybe everyone is using
~/.vimrc or they were not as puzzled as me and tried to find out what went
wrong.
After updating to your latest vim build 1152, vim started to behave really
unexpected, no syntax coloring, only one undo step a
On 2013-06-11 02:07, Frank Fesevur wrote:
2013/6/11 Yaakov (Cygwin/X):
This is an update to last week's upstream patchset, with the following
packaging changes:
* The 'vi' binary now uses ~/.virc and /etc/virc instead of vimrc to avoid
errors with configuration options not supported by 'vi'.
2013/6/11 Yaakov (Cygwin/X):
> This is an update to last week's upstream patchset, with the following
> packaging changes:
>
> * The 'vi' binary now uses ~/.virc and /etc/virc instead of vimrc to avoid
> errors with configuration options not supported by 'vi'.
>
> * gvim on x86_64 uses the GTK+ int
The following packages have been updated for the Cygwin distribution:
*** vim-7.3.1152-1
*** vim-common-7.3.1152-1
*** vim-minimal-7.3.1152-1
*** xxd-7.3.1152-1
*** gvim-7.3.1152-1
Vim is an advanced text editor that seeks to provide the power of the
de-facto Unix editor 'Vi', with a more comple
26 matches
Mail list logo
