From xemacs-m  Mon Feb 24 17:53:30 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 RAA19788
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:53:29 -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 QAA25913 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:53:28 -0700 (MST)
Received: by branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA23445; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:49:29 -0700
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:49:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199702242349.QAA23445@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: <m2d8tplq8v.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <vk67zhvr5f.fsf@cdc.noaa.gov>
	<u9lo8dhora.fsf@neal.ctd.comsat.com>
	<vk3eulvpur.fsf@cdc.noaa.gov>
	<199702242235.PAA23295@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
	<m2d8tplq8v.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

Steven L Baur writes:
 > John A Turner writes:
 > 
 > > I'll try dropping in lazy-lock 1.15 just to check, though...
 > 
 > You might consider dropping back to the 1.14 + Ben Wing hacks version in
 > 19.14 too.  It may be that upgrading lazy-lock is not the right thing
 > to do.

OK, but I never saw this in any of the 19.15 betas until after b90 (in
fact, I dropped back to b90 for daily use after trying b93 and b94),
which had 1.15.

I've been using b95 without lazy-lock since that last message, and the
problem has not appeared (dired, VM, shell, even some editing :).

-J

