From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] pager: drop "wait for output to run less" hack Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:01:57 -0400 Message-ID: <20120605160157.GA20582@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120605085604.GA27298@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Florian Achleitner To: Erik Faye-Lund X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 05 18:02:07 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SbwCr-0002dd-Si for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:02:06 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753786Ab2FEQCA (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:02:00 -0400 Received: from 99-108-225-23.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.225.23]:43894 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753658Ab2FEQCA (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:02:00 -0400 Received: (qmail 20899 invoked by uid 107); 5 Jun 2012 16:02:03 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:02:03 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:01:57 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 05:52:24PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jeff King wrote: > > I checked, and even RHEL5 is on less 436. So besides people on antique > > "I installed less from source more than 5 years ago" systems, my only > > concern would be that some other pager depends on this hack in a weird > > way. But I have never heard of such a thing, so... > > On my RHEL5 box at work: > $ less --version > less 394 > Copyright (C) 1984-2005 Mark Nudelman Then I think you are not following the bug-fix updates, as they've issued several updates based on 436: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2010-0214.html https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2010-0805.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1468.html Looks like 394 was shipping as recently as 2009: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2009-0413.html Given that the buggy less is apparently still in the wild, and that the patch is a pure cleanup, I guess we should scrap it for now. -Peff