Re: In response to the maximum size of $HISTSIZE

["Nikolai Weibull" <now@xxxxxxxx>]

On 4/10/06, Francisco Borges <f.borges@xxxxxx> wrote:
> » On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 04:10PM +0200, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
>
> > Why not make it possible to have a time-based history-scheme instead
> > of a static size-based one?  What I mean is that since Zsh allows
> > history items to be timestamped, add another parameter $HISTAGE and
> > keep items "younger" than that value.  It could be given in days,
> > weeks, months and/or years, I suppose.

> What happens with mistakes setting date? What happens when you go on
> vacantion? Abandon the account for a while?

So you lose the history that isn't interesting any more.  I really
don't see what you're getting at.  Choose and mix the settings as you
like.  What is wrong with being able to cap the age of the history
entries?

> You could then happily grep (or zgrep) on it. Which is not the same as
> zsh's history searching power, but how often do you need to retrieve a 2
> or 3 year old command?

That's the same thing as saying HISTSIZE should be capped as well, as
it will fill up with two- or three-year-old commands if you set it to
a high enough value.

  nikolai