From xemacs-m  Tue Feb 25 13:03:33 1997
Received: from altair.xemacs.org (steve@xemacs.miranova.com [206.190.83.19])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA07182
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:03:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from steve@localhost)
	by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA18089;
	Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:15:19 -0800
Mail-Copies-To: never
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: [19.15-b95 / 20.1-b2] lazy-lock lossage?
References: <m3rai5fz3s.fsf@jens.metrix.de> 	<9702250814.AA13574@mail.esrin.esa.it> <199702251602.JAA25106@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
X-Url: http://www.miranova.com/%7Esteve/
X-Face: #!T9!#9s-3o8)*uHlX{Ug[xW7E7Wr!*L46-OxqMu\xz23v|R9q}lH?cRS{rCNe^'[`^sr5"
 f8*@r4ipO6Jl!:Ccq<xoV[Qz2u8<8-+Vwf2gzJ44lf_/y9OaQ`@#Q65{U4/TC)i2`~/M&QI$X>p:9I
 OSS'2{-)-4wBnVeg0S\O4Al@)uC[pD|+
X-Attribution: sb
From: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
In-Reply-To: "John A. Turner"'s message of Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:02:32 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.105)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 25 Feb 1997 11:15:17 -0800
Message-ID: <m267zgg0je.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Lines: 24
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.15/XEmacs 20.1

John A Turner writes:

> Simon Marshall writes:
>> Somebody said that b94 was OK, and that had lazy-lock.el 1.15 (first to
>> appear in b7).  Right?  I don't have the space to keep earlier betas.

> My problems in this area go back to b93, and maybe farther, since I
> never built b91, and although I built 92 I never used it.  Both b93
> and b94 definitely exhibited it.

> b90 absolutely, positively, did not have the problem, though, because
> that's the one I kept falling back to.

This makes no sense.

XEmacs 19.14 -> XEmacs 19.15-b6 had lazy-lock 1.14+Wing hacks [1]
XEmacs 19.15-b7 -> 19.15b94 had lazy-lock 1.15
XEmacs 19.15-b95 has lazy-lock 1.16.

[1] Between 19.14 and 19.15-b2 there was a spelling correction made in
1 comment.
-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be billed at $250/message.

