On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:15:05PM +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:46:59AM +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > > > > The subject says it all. Both input fields store their entries under > > > > "input" section in the history file. Should we change the section name > > > > for each or only for one of them ? > > > > > > > both. "input" is too generic to mean anything ... > > > is "input" associated with anything else, btw? > > > > Nope. But variations are used in several places i.e. > > "input1" , "input-1", "input-def" ... Those need > > proper names too, but at least they don't use the > > same section to information from different sources. > > > yup. be considerate, though - sometime it *does* make sense to share > the history.
Do you mean, in this particular case ? I couldn't find other input fields, except those two, that share a common history . > > If we change the names people will loose their history > > once they update their MC that's the major drawback. > > > indeed, but i would not call this major. it's just an annoyance. if > something is too worthwhile to be just lost, it belongs into a > shell script/alias/function. i repeatedly made that experience ... :} Before changing anything I'll wait for some more feedback... let's hope it won't take ages :) _______________________________________________ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel