Re: new-session vs. new-session -d

2010-01-30 Thread Nicholas Marriott
I've committed this, thanks! On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 05:56:49PM -0500, Sudish Joseph wrote: > Nicholas Marriott writes: > > Please try this. > > > > Previously, new and attach were errors from inside tmux but that has now > > been > > fixed so even eg "tmux new\; new\; new\; attach -t1" should w

Re: new-session vs. new-session -d

2010-01-30 Thread Nicholas Marriott
No, I didn't make that change yet. I'll commit this one instead, thanks for testing. On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 05:56:49PM -0500, Sudish Joseph wrote: > Nicholas Marriott writes: > > Please try this. > > > > Previously, new and attach were errors from inside tmux but that has now > > been > > fixed

Re: new-session vs. new-session -d

2010-01-29 Thread Sudish Joseph
Nicholas Marriott writes: > Please try this. > > Previously, new and attach were errors from inside tmux but that has now been > fixed so even eg "tmux new\; new\; new\; attach -t1" should work. > > > Index: cmd-list.c > === > RCS fil

Re: new-session vs. new-session -d

2010-01-24 Thread Nicholas Marriott
Okay, the basic problem was laziness. Please try this. Previously, new and attach were errors from inside tmux but that has now been fixed so even eg "tmux new\; new\; new\; attach -t1" should work. Index: cmd-list.c === RCS file:

Re: new-session vs. new-session -d

2010-01-24 Thread Nicholas Marriott
I like this, but I want to have a look at the code and figure out why it ends it. It would be nice to fix this nonobvious behaviour if possible, rather than documenting it. The entire command is sent up from the client to the server and broken up there, so I can't offhand think of a reason it shou

Re: new-session vs. new-session -d

2010-01-23 Thread Nicholas Marriott
> Index: tmux.1 > === > RCS file: /cvsroot/tmux/tmux/tmux.1,v > retrieving revision 1.222 > diff -u -r1.222 tmux.1 > --- tmux.122 Jan 2010 17:28:34 - 1.222 > +++ tmux.123 Jan 2010 20:37:14 - > @@ -111,6 +111,8 @@ >

Re: new-session vs. new-session -d

2010-01-23 Thread Robin Lee Powell
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:21:06PM -0500, Sudish Joseph wrote: > Nicholas Marriott writes: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 01:33:56AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >> Why does "tmux new-session vim \; split-window \; attach" not > >> work? Why does it need the -d, I mean? Seems like attaching

Re: new-session vs. new-session -d

2010-01-23 Thread Robin Lee Powell
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 02:42:42AM +, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:21:06PM -0500, Sudish Joseph wrote: > > Nicholas Marriott writes: > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 01:33:56AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >> Why does "tmux new-session vim \; split-window \; attac

Re: new-session vs. new-session -d

2010-01-23 Thread Nicholas Marriott
I was rambling a bit when I wrote this (had just got home), I'll add your suggestion to the todo list, but if you want to send me the changes it'd be great :-). On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 02:42:42AM +, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:21:06PM -0500, Sudish Joseph wrote: > >

Re: new-session vs. new-session -d

2010-01-22 Thread Nicholas Marriott
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:21:06PM -0500, Sudish Joseph wrote: > Nicholas Marriott writes: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 01:33:56AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >> Why does "tmux new-session vim \; split-window \; attach" not > >> work? Why does it need the -d, I mean? Seems like attaching