Can you try my latest patch and see if it still works acceptably for you?
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 04:34:22PM -0700, Suraj Kurapati wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > if this behaviour needs reverting, and/or enough people complain,
> > we'll consider doing so?
>
I'd say (2), we never want to automatically destroy buffers which the
user has explicitly named, let them do that.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 06:34:58PM -0500, J Raynor wrote:
> Your proposed implementation looks fine to me. I have a question about this:
>
> > - buffer-limit is only applied to !st
Your proposed implementation looks fine to me. I have a question about this:
> - buffer-limit is only applied to !sticky buffers
Which of these did you mean?
1. Buffer-limit limits the total number of buffers (the sum of sticky
and non-sticky), but only non-sticky buffers get aged away.
2. B
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Thomas Adam wrote:
> if this behaviour needs reverting, and/or enough people complain,
> we'll consider doing so?
I, for one, have no complaints about the current behaviour because I
was among[1] those[2] who requested[3] the current behavior in the
first place.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Nicholas Marriott
wrote:
> Applied this to OpenBSD now with the const char * thing fixed. Thanks
Ok. I'll wait until this shows up in the git repository and then send
in the 2nd part of the "--" patch.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 01:24:23AM +, Doug Luce wrote:
> This patch adds line-joining capability to the copy mode. Multiple
> applications of the join command will give you a choice of delimiter.
Can't you already do this with "paste-buffer -s"? And hence use that to
bind whatever keys you
> Assuming the one on 11/04 is the MASK diff, I replied to it already and
> it is not going in.
No, is not. It's the attached one.
> Your other diffs don't really have enough explanation, window_choose_key
> with KEYC_UP and DOWN works fine without any additional checks.
Unless you have a "big" li
I am still not convinced by this, I don't need more tests, I need good
reasons why we should do this - what is it useful for apart from
scrolling in less? Why shouldn't this be done in less itself? It can't
be that hard to make less support the mouse.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 06:08:04PM +0200, Mar
Assuming the one on 11/04 is the MASK diff, I replied to it already and
it is not going in.
Your other diffs don't really have enough explanation, window_choose_key
with KEYC_UP and DOWN works fine without any additional checks.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 04:50:51PM +0200, Marcel Partap wrote:
> >
