Closed stephenprater closed 12 years ago
what was the poor performance? I'm not seeing a performance difference.
Of course, I extracted this out of a branch with a bunch of other feature, so it's possible I forgot some critically important bit when I was doing the patch.
Hi Stephen, I actually liked all the enhancements. But I found a serious lag (sometimes up to a second or more) when selecting a buffer for opening, either using "
Figured it out. Apparently, the recursive maps wait on the expanded rhs - so where I have
http://vim.1045645.n5.nabble.com/map-timeout-td1181381.html
Learn something new everyday. I have a patch for that, but am unsure of how to proceed? Do I need to rebase my topic branch against SHA: 6e16269 or submit a new PR or ?
Hi Stephen,
Glad you fixed it!
One approach might be to revert all my reverts, then rebase your topic branch on this, then commit to the main branch. Maybe then use squash or something so all the reverts plus your fixes are one commit.
Another might be to rebase your topic branch on 6e16269, and then simply check out master and check out your topic branch version of the plugin on top of the master version (i.e., not a merge as such, but just clobbering it in).
What do you think?
Okay, I rebased onto SHA:6e16269 and then committed the fix into the topic branch.
It's on the plug_mappings branch - you might be able to merge it in if you reopen?
How do you reopen a merge request? Is this possible? If not, maybe you could merge into master and issue a pull request?
I haven't forgotten about this - I just wanted to use it for a while before I resubmitted to make sure there's not any other little gotchas like that.
move the mappings from global and done in a function into