Re: PATCH: 3.0.6-pre-3: mainly history bug fixes

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 3,  8:11pm, Wayne Davison wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: 3.0.6-pre-3: mainly history bug fixes
}
} On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Bart Schaefer wrote:
} > Something I don't want to accidentally do is fold in the history
} > search change (whole words at beginning of line)
} 
} Quite correct, I did not include that change, nor any history change
} that was not a bug fix or a code optimization.

Thank you (both for doing it and reassuring me about it).

} > what's going to happen when somebody with this option set fires up
} > a new zsh and it loads his existing old-format .zhistory?
} 
} The new code is smart enough to treat a finish length that is >= the
} start time as the old format.

Aha.

} Going back from a new shell with this new EXTENDED_HISTORY format to
} an old shell without it can cause the finish times to read in as
} very early dates, but I wasn't particularly concerned about this.
} Do you feel differently?

I'm thinking about it ... of course one hopes that there won't be any
reason to go backwards ... it's impossible to make such a change in a
forwards-compatible way (such that the old version won't be confused)
so there's no point in doing more than you have; the question is if the
change should be made at all.

Here's a thought that just occurred to me:  What if we have 3.0.6 keep
writing hist files in the old format, but treat a finish time less than
the start time as the new format?  Then 3.0.6 and 3.1.6 will be able to
exchange history files with each other.  A transition phase like that
seems worthwhile to me.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com