Hi, On Tue, 23 Nov 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > yes, my plan was to minimize the impact of this bugfix by doing this > > as narrow as possible, but you are correct that if we consider that > > ... > > I should have mentioned though that a better fix was forthcoming, just > > not with so little time before 2.34.1 gets released. > > ... > >> In any case, I am quite tempted to just revert the offending topic > >> for now, but later accept a resurrection patch with this isatty > >> check rolled in (either at this caller, or inside save_term) when > >> the dust settles. > > > > I indeed suggested[1] a revert but I wouldn't have proposed this > > alternative if it wouldn't be done safely enough, > > I think the minimum impact fix is to revert the whole thing (people > survived without it for long time), so that is what 2.34.1 will > hopefully have. As I said elsewhere, I am open to a rebooted effort > for the future cycles, but the conclusion for the topic in 2.34 series > is that we pretend we never heard about it ;-) Maybe a better approach would be to hide the `save_term()` dance behind a new config option, and then have it turned on automatically if the `editor` _happens_ to be `vi` or `vim`. That would help the problem reported in the Windows Terminal project. Ciao, Dscho
