[RFC] vim-patch:7.4.231

[atwupack]

vim-patch:7.4.230

Problem: Error when using ":options".
Solution: Fix the entry for 'lispwords'. (Kenichi Ito)

https://code.google.com/p/vim/source/detail?r=57ecd7a8c0f052296b41b916eb1ae7

This has already been done with #938. This commit only changes version.c.

The current version.c already has patch 230 in it.

---

vim-patch:7.4.231

Problem: An error in ":options" is not caught by the tests.
Solution: Add a test for ":options". Set $VIMRUNTIME for the tests so that
it uses the current runtime files instead of the installed ones.

https://code.google.com/p/vim/source/detail?r=0a295a3c9e473512ad3b006a0fb752

This is the test for 7.4.230. I have changed the $SCRIPTSOURCE/$VIMRUNTIME to match the Neovim project structure.

[justinmk]

@oni-link @atwupack I've committed a script in the bot-ci project to auto-generate a vim-patch report here:

http://neovim.org/doc/build-reports/vimpatch/

So we no longer need to manually update the wiki page. I don't want to remove the table in the wiki page yet, because the report still doesn't take into account the "N/A" items. I was thinking we could indicate those in version.c by appending NA to specific commented-out versions, eg:

//123 NA

The script also will obviously have problems when Vim switches to version 7.5. By then, we'll have Neovim's versioning process decided and we can adapt the script based on that.

We can also make the script link to the GitHub commits by using git log --grep='vim-patch'.

[atwupack]

@justinmk Good work. This will make it easier to keep track of the patches.
I also had the idea a few days ago to put some kind of annotation in version.c on the patches that won't be included. Maybe we could even handle it in a way that these "missing" patches won't show up as gaps on the :version page?
I know it is a first draft but a small thing: the pull requests should have a link to the PR page.

[justinmk]

Maybe we could even handle it in a way that these "missing" patches won't show up as gaps on the :version page?

That's definitely something that will be fixed when we settle on a versioning scheme.

the pull requests should have a link to the PR page.

It's a bug, noted here: neovim/bot-ci#10 Fixed.

[Hinidu]

Maybe we could even handle it in a way that these "missing" patches won't show up as gaps on the :version page?

What about this?

123,  // NA

[justinmk]

@Hinidu I would like to do that, but #445 (comment) pointed out some valid reasons why we should't do that.

[justinmk]

Although it doesn't technically matter, for consistency this should probably use := like the other assignments above. I think := is also less surprising so it's good practice to use it unless = behavior is explicitly needed.

[atwupack]

@justinmk I have changed the assignment and removed patch 230 from this PR.