[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use

From: Ken Manheimer
Subject: Re: how-many/count-matches for non-interactive use
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:48:28 -0500

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:39:20 -0400 (EDT), I wrote:
> I applied your allout patch, and it checks out fine, hot-spot operation
> included.

I discovered a bug related to this conversion for which i have a fix,
but only in my skewed version of the code.  The problem now is that
the skew in my version is big enough (eg, the function name prefix in
my version is "outline-", which yields hundreds of spurious
differences), and i haven't succeeded in fixing the problem in the
current gnu CVS version of the code with a little bit of effort.

The problem may well have existed in the gnu version of the code
before the interactive-p-to-interactive conversion - though it only
started appearing in my version after applying the conversion.  (The
fix in my version entailed applying the conversion to some functions
that were missed in RMS patch, specifically outline-end-of-level - but
changing the current gnu version's 'allout-end-of-level' so it's
similar doesn't help.)

(The problem is in allout's mechanism which automatically adjusts the
outline level of a pasted topic and its subtopics to that of the
header into which it's being pasted, if the paste target header is
bare.  With the bug, the adjustment process infinitely loops.)

I intend to chip away on eliminating all (750) differences, to
converge my version and the gnu one (preferring the gnu one when not
incorrect, eg using the 'allout-' function name prefix), and finally
bring them into sync.  I am hoping to do this over the next several
weeks, though i'm in the process of a big move so i can't give an
assured estimate of the finish time.

One question i have for you all is how best to get the result to you. 
I would like to work against a checkout of the current CVS, and expect
it'll be easy to find instructions for doing that checkout.  Should i
just send the diff (along with a ChangeLog entry) for the converged 
(and fixed) version to the list of addresses in this conversation?

In the long run, i would like to become more active maintaining
allout, and wonder what the common practice is for applying changes to
code that's part of the main distribution.  I welcome pointers to
guidelines, etc.
Ken Manheimer
address@hidden, address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]