DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=ix1qZm/jsy5/HbTxaFvQBD7p/XFlbKdG8THqyH3Cfca
	d94LE/AQCd9COoElY7s/RTzivk/Cbyb1wcgrWir1QLBQxnTThQwVG0+boJYhdFcP
	PSMBANFG6B4Mr34gjmFdbHLOJh6sReQLPpr0+DxcpZ70okAyaJxZbaEk/xH6uu2M
	=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKf2h5SNP3zck69kmA6NbPv6EdakMtnu=zbiviDu6fZ4DmW1iw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52096B42.8010702@Kautler.net> <CAKChYSpP=AKMOc7yHL9NMJyQeKEvsswgKFTyJVKZZrg5vqbPsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKChYSpBEmXquHxkC2LZSmgH60kXfTxriDVX_Ap6HC4GNMRWMg@mail.gmail.com> <20131206171721.GA7240@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <CAKChYSqyXHXUh1GVNsOEZWPbS=RsObb_gOCLX5kycMFWej-mwQ@mail.gmail.com> <20131206234833.GC3154@phoenix> <CAKChYSrNhmza5TBZNQQnaAC2LKJz7G1MbJi-+1K97c=Z0h9CJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKf2h5S8n+JX1LVbf+ZZDRUneJuiG0OQ9B9wTpr3WVj2gUkNSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKChYSrsuLrO=OxZqD7wSeti8-oGtZeYr5yy3rjxxQGU6zzuxg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKf2h5S+b8kjuXm2bmuEwUGk9bLfJjq602-e_YYGhcptKd_XWQ@mail.gmail.com> <20131209125119.GJ2527@calimero.vinschen.de> <CAKChYSq8RTRpH3OprWSHKqWbT9POjHGmcMGRESqb+KXmVmecCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKf2h5SNP3zck69kmA6NbPv6EdakMtnu=zbiviDu6fZ4DmW1iw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Kautler?= <Bjoern@Kautler.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:14:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKChYSqV_2bC64OckU1Ff08NYt0mAwYz7A=NNmWqaUru9p86MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: vim-7.3.1152-1
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The special handling of vi is just fine.
The whole problem is that not only the vi behaviour changed, but also
the vim behaviour.
Which is why I suggested the solutions I suggested.

2013/12/9 Frank Fesevur <ffes@users.sourceforge.net>:
> 2013/12/9 Björn Kautler:
>> Again, what I talk about is NOT an issue of vi vs. vim.
>> What I talk about is a breaking change in vim that was introduced
>> while doing a change for vi.
>> But it is NOT an issue of vi vs. vim.
>
> That patch was introduced when people started to complain that they
> got errors about commands not recognized in their vimrc. The root
> cause of this was obviously the whole vi != vim thing.
>
> I always use ~/.vimrc so I never ran into your problem.
>
> Regards,
> Frank
>
> --
> Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple