Re: Applying outstanding patches [was: Release what we've got?]

[Charles Levert]

Partial comments...


* On Tuesday 2005-06-14 at 00:26:06 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> 
> I have applied those that I felt happy with.

On your personal copy, right?  I haven't seen
anything in CVS yet.


> "oi" patch:
>   Is it safe to be changing our copy of "regex.h" like this?  Why the 
>   change from #include "regex.h" to <regex.h> ?  Do these changes to search.c 
> make some of our existing case-folding logic redundant?

There are many problems I noted with the regex
issue, unfortunately my comments are all over
the place.

This is why at one point I advocated
updating/synching regex.[ch] as being our
highest priority (but others disagreed).

>From memory...

The --without-included-regex option to configure
doesn't work properly because it still picks up
the included "regex.h".

The patch adds some right stuff but at a
completely wrong place.

The patch fails to change all "regex.h"
to <regex.h>.

Claudio might have left us with some useful work
on this, but it's a _huge_ patch and it's going
to take some time just to understand what's
in it.

We have to move to the POSIX API instead of the
GNU one anyway.


> "icolor" patch:
>   This just removes some code, saying that it is "redundant and incorrect". 
>   I suspect that it depends on some other patch to have been applied first - 
> and I think maybe I asked and was told - but the patch issue doesn't say 
> so, and it should.  If I'm wrong, and all the tests that currently pass 
> still pass after applying this, that would be great, but I think I tried 
> that before.  I think this is superceded by patch #3767: Remove two 
> match_icase code paths from prline() in src/grep.c.

All the "oi" stuff must be dealt with first,
before removing this.