[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17
From: |
Daniel O'Connor |
Subject: |
Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17 |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:52:07 +0930 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.7 |
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:40, Michael Albinus wrote:
> > Very weird :(
> > Any idea if this is a known XEmacs bug?
>
> Yes, I've reported it already on the -beta mailing list.
Ok.
> > Maybe I should hassle them :)
>
> For sure :-)
Done..
--
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
-- Andrew Tanenbaum
GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
pgpJdArNdwy7t.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/11
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/11
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/12
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/12
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/17
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/17
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/18
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Daniel O'Connor, 2004/10/18
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17, Michael Albinus, 2004/10/18
- Re: TRAMP vs xemacs 21.5.b17,
Daniel O'Connor <=