From xemacs-m  Wed Feb 26 03:41:04 1997
Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (root@frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA13824
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 03:41:03 -0600 (CST)
Received: from fresnel.math.ethz.ch (vroonhof@fresnel [129.132.145.6]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.6.12/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id KAA03692 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:40:51 +0100
Received: (vroonhof@localhost) by fresnel.math.ethz.ch (8.6.9/D-MATH-client) id KAA14360; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:39:42 +0100
Sender: vroonhof@math.ethz.ch
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> <m267zgg0je.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.94)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@math.ethz.ch>
Date: 26 Feb 1997 10:39:42 +0100
In-Reply-To: Steven L Baur's message of 25 Feb 1997 11:15:17 -0800
Message-ID: <by7mjv6h41.fsf@math.ethz.ch>
Lines: 26
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.13/XEmacs 19.15

Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> 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.

Conclusion: A subprocess bug was introduced in the recent beta's that
is triggered by loading lazy lock. Now we just need to find out what
part of lazy-lock triggers the bug.

> This makes no sense.

What would you expect. It's bug :-)

Jan


P.S. Did you get my (less intrusive) alternative frame-freeze patch?

