On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 20:09, Jon Seymour <jon.seym...@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess the point is that in versions of bash that do store the > timestamp in the .bash_history file
To clarify, the timestamp is stored whenever HISTTIMEFORMAT has a non-null value; the bash version doesn't particularly matter unless you're suggesting that HISTTIMEFORMAT is non-null by default under some bash versions. If there aren't really any concerns about using the same history file with older versions of bash, then wouldn't it be better to have a new file format that can handle multi-line commands more directly?
