From xemacs-m  Thu Feb 27 09:56:19 1997
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov (mailhost.lanl.gov [128.165.3.12])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA04279
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:56:18 -0600 (CST)
Received: from branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (branagh.ta52.lanl.gov [128.165.144.9]) by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id IAA19478 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:56:18 -0700 (MST)
Received: by branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA08739; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:52:14 -0700
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:52:14 -0700
Message-Id: <199702271552.IAA08739@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
From: "John A. Turner" <turner@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: XEmacs-20.1-b3 is released
In-Reply-To: <9702271504.AA07869@mail.esrin.esa.it>
References: <199702271412.JAA16030@blight.IntraNet.com>
	<9702271504.AA07869@mail.esrin.esa.it>
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

Simon Marshall writes:

 > I assume you're talking about what version of lazy-lock.el version 1 to
 > use, following the 2 problems that started with b95.
 > 
 > 1.  Process output hang is the sit-for on post-command-hook XEmacs bug.
 > This effects any lazy-lock.el version 1, at least if you have Lazy Lock
 > mode on anywhere and have stealth enabled.  So it effects b95 with
 > lazy-lock.el 1.14 + Ben hacks (from XEmacs 19.14), 1.15 and 1.16.  I just
 > tested this with XEmacs 19.15b95 to confirm it.

So you've confirmed what I was saying (that dropping back to 1.15
doesn't make the problem go away).

One other thing, though.  As I've said *several* times, I noticed this
first with b93 (though I never built b91 and built but didn't use b92).

In any event, it wasn't there in b90, it was in b93.

-- 
John Turner
http://www.lanl.gov/home/turner

