From xemacs-m  Mon Feb 24 20:12:13 1997
Received: from neal.ctd.comsat.com (exim@neal.ctd.comsat.com [134.133.40.21])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA20410
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:12:13 -0600 (CST)
Received: from neal by neal.ctd.comsat.com with local (Exim 1.58 #2)
	id 0vz8Je-0007mU-00; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:52:10 -0500
To: Mark Borges <mdb@cdc.noaa.gov>
Cc: XEmacs beta-list <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: [19.15-b95 / 20.1-b2] lazy-lock lossage?
References: <vk67zhvr5f.fsf@cdc.noaa.gov> <u9lo8dhora.fsf@neal.ctd.comsat.com> <vk3eulvpur.fsf@cdc.noaa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.105)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Neal Becker <neal@ctd.comsat.com>
Date: 24 Feb 1997 16:52:10 -0500
In-Reply-To: Mark Borges's message of 24 Feb 1997 14:47:08 -0700
Message-ID: <u9k9nxhnxx.fsf@neal.ctd.comsat.com>
Lines: 14
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.15/XEmacs 20.1

>>>>> "mb" == Mark Borges <mdb@cdc.noaa.gov> writes:

    >>> On 24 Feb 1997 16:34:33 -0500,
    >>> Neal Becker(NB) wrote:
    NB> Yes, lazy-lock is the culprit in the massive slow downs.  (I don't
    NB> know what became of the messages I sent earlier today on this
    NB> subject).

    mb> FWIW, lazy-lock was updated from v1.15 to v1.16 in betas 19.15-b95 and
    mb> 20.1-b2.

    mb> Using, the version from the previous betas seems to work for me.

Me too.

