ASSI writes:
> It _might_ be possible for this particular case that one could open
> /proc/${clientpid}/fd/1 and have it do the right thing. If so, then the
> call just above that clobbers stdin with the ttyname would probably be
> better off as /proc/${clientpid}/fd/0.
To paraphrase Douglas N. A
Michael Wild via Cygwin writes:
> I just uploaded a patched test version 3.2-1 (yeah, I know, I'm off by
> one with the release number...). Can you give it a go and see whether
> the mosh test suite runs through with it?
No it doesn't and I don't even understand why anybody thinks that would
fix t
Michael Wild via Cygwin writes:
> I just uploaded a patched test version 3.2-1 (yeah, I know, I'm off by
> one with the release number...). Can you give it a go and see whether
> the mosh test suite runs through with it?
I'll have a look, but it'll probably at the weekend.
Regards,
Achim.
--
+<
> > [...]
> > As I said in the original posting, the test suite for mosh makes use of
> > control mode.
> > [...]
I just uploaded a patched test version 3.2-1 (yeah, I know, I'm off by
one with the release number...). Can you give it a go and see whether
the mosh test suite runs through with it?
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:30 PM Achim Gratz wrote:
>
> Michael Wild via Cygwin writes:
> > Just out of curiosity: is this a critical feature for you? E.g. are
> > you automating tmux with it? Because as far as I understand control
> > mode is intended for integration with terminal emulators. And so
Michael Wild via Cygwin writes:
> Just out of curiosity: is this a critical feature for you? E.g. are
> you automating tmux with it? Because as far as I understand control
> mode is intended for integration with terminal emulators. And so far,
> iTerm2 on Mac is the only one implementing the protoc
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 12:08 PM ASSI wrote:
>
> Michael Wild via Cygwin writes:
> > Sorry for the mistake with the release number. Should that be a sanity
> > check in calm?
>
> I personally don't think so, if you want to do a test / pre-release then
> starting with a "0" seems netural to me.
>
>
Michael Wild via Cygwin writes:
> Sorry for the mistake with the release number. Should that be a sanity
> check in calm?
I personally don't think so, if you want to do a test / pre-release then
starting with a "0" seems netural to me.
> As for the problem with the control mode: Is there anything
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:02 PM Achim Gratz wrote:
>
> Achim Gratz writes:
> > Michael Wild via Cygwin-announce via Cygwin writes:
> >> The following packages have been uploaded to the Cygwin distribution:
> >>
> >> * tmux-3.2-0
> >
> > [nit]
> > General releases should be numbered starting with 1
Achim Gratz writes:
> Michael Wild via Cygwin-announce via Cygwin writes:
>> The following packages have been uploaded to the Cygwin distribution:
>>
>> * tmux-3.2-0
>
> [nit]
> General releases should be numbered starting with 1.
>
> Is the control mode working as intended and if yes, is there a w
10 matches
Mail list logo