From xemacs-m  Mon Feb 24 16:39:58 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 QAA19454
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:39:57 -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 PAA13523 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:39:54 -0700 (MST)
Received: by branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA23295; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:35:55 -0700
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:35:55 -0700
Message-Id: <199702242235.PAA23295@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: [19.15-b95 / 20.1-b2] lazy-lock lossage?
In-Reply-To: <vk3eulvpur.fsf@cdc.noaa.gov>
References: <vk67zhvr5f.fsf@cdc.noaa.gov>
	<u9lo8dhora.fsf@neal.ctd.comsat.com>
	<vk3eulvpur.fsf@cdc.noaa.gov>
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

Mark Borges 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).
 > 
 > FWIW, lazy-lock was updated from v1.15 to v1.16 in betas 19.15-b95 and
 > 20.1-b2.
 > 
 > Using, the version from the previous betas seems to work for me.

I'm not sure it's that simple, as I saw this in b93 and b94 as well.

I sent messages about this for both of those betas, though they were
probably cryptic and confusing, only mentioned *shell*, and the b93
message had a backtrace from a crash as well.

I'll try dropping in lazy-lock 1.15 just to check, though...

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

