From xemacs-m  Tue Feb 25 10:07:19 1997
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov (mailhost.lanl.gov [128.165.3.12])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA05455
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:07:08 -0600 (CST)
Received: from branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (branagh.ta52.lanl.gov [128.165.144.9]) by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id JAA14030 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:06:47 -0700 (MST)
Received: by branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA25106; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:02:32 -0700
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:02:32 -0700
Message-Id: <199702251602.JAA25106@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
From: "John A. Turner" <turner@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: [19.15-b95 / 20.1-b2] lazy-lock lossage?
In-Reply-To: <9702250814.AA13574@mail.esrin.esa.it>
References: <m3rai5fz3s.fsf@jens.metrix.de>
	<9702250814.AA13574@mail.esrin.esa.it>
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

Simon Marshall writes:

 > Somebody said that b94 was OK, and that had lazy-lock.el 1.15 (first to
 > appear in b7).  Right?  I don't have the space to keep earlier betas.

My problems in this area go back to b93, and maybe farther, since I
never built b91, and although I built 92 I never used it.  Both b93
and b94 definitely exhibited it.

b90 absolutely, positively, did not have the problem, though, because
that's the one I kept falling back to.

-John

