scp completions use "ls" to list files on the remote host. If a user aliases
them (in noninteractive shells) this will break. In general, this is the
users fault but also kind of ours because we shouldn't really use "ls" here.
Let's work around this problem by skipping functions.
Fixes#9363
Implement completion for vim tags from any place within the source tree.
To prevent freezes on a huge tags file (e.g., on one from the Linux
kernel source tree), amount of completion lines is limited to 10000.
Note that the TAGS file (EMACS-compatible tags file) is not searched
here as it would not be used by vim anyway.
The stack overflow tests are too slow without this.
This is because the tests are essentially quadratic: with 500 jobs, and
each job attempts to reap all jobs.
Inside a comment we offer plain file completions (or command completions if
the comment is in command position). However these completions are broken
because they don't consider any of the surrounding characters. For example
with a command line
echo # comment
^ cursor
we suggest file completions and insert them as
echo # comsomefile ment
Providing completions inside comments does not seem useful and it can be
misleading. Let's remove the completions; this should communicate better that
we are in a free-form comment that's not subject to fish syntax.
Closes#9320
flatpak completions gate some features behind checks like
test $flatpakversion -gt 1.2
which does a floating point comparison, which is different
from version comparison.
Most of these version checks are irrelevant anyway because they check for
a version that's not even in Debian oldstable. The only one that might be
relevant is a check for version 1.5 but that only gates some extra subcommands;
there's little harm in providing them too.
So let's just remove the version check.
Hopefully fixes#9341 (untested)
Note that flatpak upstream provides a completion file too - but it's shadowed
by ours on my system. This is a tricky issue for another day.
It is 1 whole year, for an already closed issue.
Any "engagement" that happens at that point is irrelevant to the
original issue at hand, and a new issue should be opened instead.
Increasing the grace period even further is even less likely to be helpful.
When unsetting, the scope indicates the scope that was *removed* not
set, so the warning is incorrectly triggered. If anything, the confusion
is now removed or we emit a warning that the variable is still present
in another scope (but don't do that!).
Closes#9338.
It's fine if it doesn't show up in the synopsis above, but putting it
under "Notes" is just too awkward.
It's a short option that exists, and so it should be documented.
