Possible Fedora 39 feature
The most recently closed bash shell is the last to overwrite .bash_history with its history, stomping out the histories of all other shells. It's a little confusing.
.bash_history
I've implemented this suggestion in .bash_profile and indeed every shell has each command appended into .bash_history.
.bash_profile
Each shell's commands are interlaced, in the order issued. But since the .bash_history file isn't (re)read every time the history command is issued, running shells don't affect the history command results in any other running shell. So... they're independent, while running.
history
In effect there's two histories: in-memory, and on-disk.
There is still confusing behavior: Given three shells, commands issued in each, then opening a 4th shell (tab) and issuing history, I do not see the commands just issued in those three shells. I have to quit GNOME Terminal first. Then I see them. But I like that the individual shell command histories aren't lost forever, so that's a significant improvement.
Metadata Update from @catanzaro: - Issue untagged with: meeting-request - Issue tagged with: meeting
Action item: Chris to propose adding history -a to $PROMPT_COMMAND
history -a
$PROMPT_COMMAND
Metadata Update from @catanzaro: - Issue untagged with: meeting - Issue assigned to chrismurphy - Issue tagged with: pending-action
Top level post on devel@
An interesting comment, suggesting the first step to making it easier to do what we want as an (optional) drop-in enhancement
Overall this did not seem to be a popular change on devel@ list. Therefore I'm not inclined to go forward with a change proposal. I also don't understand the nuances discussed in the thread well enough to refine the proposal. But if there is a way to address those concerns, then I'll sign on as an additional change owner and help however I can.
We discussed this issue at today's working group call.
It was felt that the change would generally benefit users, and so it would be sad not to implement it. Therefore, we'll implement it as a subpackage which users can install/uninstall. We may initially start with the subpackage uninstalled by default, prior to preinstalling it in a subsequent release.
@catanzaro and @chrismurphy have volunteered to create a change proposal for this change.
Metadata Update from @aday: - Issue set to the milestone: Fedora 39 (was: Future Release)
I don't see a change proposal for this. Removing the f39 target milestone.
Metadata Update from @aday: - Issue set to the milestone: None (was: Fedora 39)
I really wanted to do this, but I'm afraid it has fallen off my to-do list. :(
I suppose we shouldn't leave the issue report open forever unless somebody intends to work on it.
Login to comment on this ticket.