bug#65303: emacs 29.1.50; Inconsistency in eshell.texi Introduction

bug#65303: emacs 29.1.50; Inconsistency in eshell.texi Introduction

[Eric Gillespie]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1012 bytes --]

I've found an inconsistency in the Introduction to eshell.texi. It
specifies as part of
a search pattern for Word Document files that are 100k or larger and six
months or older the following footnoted pattern:

ls -lt **/*.doc(Lk+50aM+5)

That nets me files bigger than 50k, not the 100k specified in the
paragraph. Here's
a quick diff supplying a correction.

===== diff =====
diff --git a/doc/misc/eshell.texi b/doc/misc/eshell.texi
index b5311e63a56..26f282de69c 100644
--- a/doc/misc/eshell.texi
+++ b/doc/misc/eshell.texi
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ Introduction
 Any tool you use often deserves the time spent learning to master it.
 @footnote{For the understandably curious, here is what that command
 looks like: But don't let it fool you; once you know what's going on,
-it's easier than it looks: @code{ls -lt **/*.doc(Lk+50aM+5)}.}
+it's easier than it looks: @code{ls -lt **/*.doc(Lk+100aM+5)}.}

 @menu
 * Contributors to Eshell::      People who have helped out!
===== end diff =====

Regards, brickviking

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1159 bytes --]

bug#65303: emacs 29.1.50; Inconsistency in eshell.texi Introduction

[Jim Porter]

On 8/14/2023 7:28 PM, Eric Gillespie wrote:
> I've found an inconsistency in the Introduction to eshell.texi. It 
> specifies as part of
> a search pattern for Word Document files that are 100k or larger and six
> months or older the following footnoted pattern:
> 
> ls -lt **/*.doc(Lk+50aM+5)
> 
> That nets me files bigger than 50k, not the 100k specified in the 
> paragraph. Here's
> a quick diff supplying a correction.

Thanks for catching this. (It turns out the other argument predicate is 
wrong too: it should be "M+6"!)

Fixed in 21b2ecee661 on the release branch, and closing this bug.

bug#65303: emacs 29.1.50; Inconsistency in eshell.texi Introduction

[Jim Porter]

On 8/15/2023 10:13 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
> Fixed in 21b2ecee661 on the release branch, and closing this bug.

Scratch that. *Now* this bug is closed.