Re: [OT] Not clobbering bash history
Please continue to CC: me on this thread, as I'm no longer part of the emacs-devel mailing list for the moment. On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 16:54, Richard Stallman wrote: > > > If two different shells will try to write history into one single > file, > > > are they doomed to give bad results, one
Re: [OT] Not clobbering bash history
[[[ 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. ]]] > > So the commands of Basb process A and those of Basb process B would be > >
Re: [OT] Not clobbering bash history
[[[ 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, > >
Re: [OT] Not clobbering bash history
2023-12-07
Thread
Arsen Arsenović via Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists
Richard Stallman writes: > [[[ 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. ]]] > > I moved this to emacs-tangents because thus
Re: [OT] Not clobbering bash history
On 2023-12-07, at 06:48, Emanuel Berg wrote: > mbork wrote: > >>> That makes a kind of sense, but what I would envision is >>> that each Bash process has its own history with only the >>> commands of that process. >>> >>> Why do you prefer the shared history file approach to the >>>
