Re: [PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 16:25 Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > Every maintainer has the freedom to use his choice of process. Some > have a github project where you can file an issue or pull request, some > just use email. Enforcing a certain way of working will increase the > bureden on maintainers,

Re: [PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

Felipe Contreras wrote: > I didn't contact the maintainer, it should be responsibility of > him/her to be responsive to patches. The way Vim runtime file maintenance works is that you report any problems or possible improvements directly to the maintainer. If the maintainer does not respond we

Re: [PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

I didn't contact the maintainer, it should be responsibility of him/her to be responsive to patches. His address on the syntax file is wrong anyway. He eventually replied, years later, not looking at my patches, and he didn't reply to me so I never got that response. He said he didn't read

Re: [PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

On Do, 13 Jun 2019, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Five years later and this still doesn't work correctly. Well, have you contacted the maintainer? > No wonder there's a need for neovim. No need to be snarky here. Note that Neovim handles runtime files like Vim does (because they use mostly the

Re: [PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 3:51 PM Felipe Contreras wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Nikolay Pavlov wrote: > > 2015-10-15 14:03 GMT+03:00 Felipe Contreras : > >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Nikolay Pavlov wrote: > >>> 2015-10-15 13:10 GMT+03:00 Felipe Contreras : > Hello? >

Re: [PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

Felipe Contreras wrote: > Hello? > > Why hasn't this been fixed? > I don't read every message on the list, plus I've been busy lately. As Nikolay Pavlov mentions, emailing me directly is the best way to get things into the syntax files I maintain. I suggest that you try the latest version of

Re: [PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Nikolay Pavlov wrote: > 2015-10-15 14:03 GMT+03:00 Felipe Contreras : >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Nikolay Pavlov wrote: >>> 2015-10-15 13:10 GMT+03:00 Felipe Contreras

Re: [PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

2015-10-15 14:03 GMT+03:00 Felipe Contreras : > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Nikolay Pavlov wrote: >> 2015-10-15 13:10 GMT+03:00 Felipe Contreras : >>> Hello? >>> >>> Why hasn't this been fixed? >> >> You need to CC

Re: [PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Nikolay Pavlov wrote: > 2015-10-15 13:10 GMT+03:00 Felipe Contreras : >> Hello? >> >> Why hasn't this been fixed? > > You need to CC file maintainer, not just list. Also do not top post. Really? The maintainer is not

Re: [PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

Hello? Why hasn't this been fixed? On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > I noticed a bunch of issues while representing perfectly valid here documents. > > cat <<-\EOF > $foobar > EOF > > cat <<\ > EOF > $foobar > EOF > > cat <<-\

Re: [PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

2015-10-15 13:10 GMT+03:00 Felipe Contreras : > Hello? > > Why hasn't this been fixed? You need to CC file maintainer, not just list. Also do not top post. > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> I noticed a bunch

[PATCH 0/3] syntax: sh: heredoc fixes

I noticed a bunch of issues while representing perfectly valid here documents. cat -\EOF $foobar EOF cat \ EOF $foobar EOF cat -\ \EOF $foobar EOF Felipe Contreras (3): syntax: sh: improve heredoc delimiter identifier regex syntax: sh: fix representation of unquoted