Keep all commands in bash history?
I have the opposite question to this. How do I keep all commands in bash history?
In Ubuntu since quite some time now, the default for bash is to forget commands with non success exit code.
Unix user @goldilocks pointed out that maybe I am just confused by the ignoreboth directive.
set pastie
bash command-history
edited yesterday
Rui F Ribeiro
38.8k1479128
asked Dec 6 '12 at 10:01
Prof. Falken
12316
|
show 2 more comments
I have the opposite question to this. How do I keep all commands in bash history?
In Ubuntu since quite some time now, the default for bash is to forget commands with non success exit code.
Unix user @goldilocks pointed out that maybe I am just confused by the ignoreboth directive.
set pastie
bash command-history
edited yesterday
Rui F Ribeiro
38.8k1479128
asked Dec 6 '12 at 10:01
Prof. Falken
12316
3
To me it looks like this is not the default to forget unsucessful commands in Ubuntu. What version are you using? Could you post a link to the output of the "set" command in pasebin or something so we could see what makes it delete the commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:25
@DavidKohen, added pastebin link.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 10:43
1
The only thing I see in relation to history deletion is the fact that it ignores duplicates and lines that start with a space. Are you sure it ignores the failed commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:55
I was quite sure, but you make me doubt myself. It's not that way for "false". I will come back to this question and update it when annoyance strikes again.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 12:08
The 'this' and 'much prefer this' lead to the same place, which is a bit confusing...
– goldilocks
Dec 6 '12 at 12:27
|
show 2 more comments
I have the opposite question to this. How do I keep all commands in bash history?
In Ubuntu since quite some time now, the default for bash is to forget commands with non success exit code.
Unix user @goldilocks pointed out that maybe I am just confused by the ignoreboth directive.
set pastie
bash command-history
edited yesterday
Rui F Ribeiro
38.8k1479128
asked Dec 6 '12 at 10:01
Prof. Falken
12316
I have the opposite question to this. How do I keep all commands in bash history?
In Ubuntu since quite some time now, the default for bash is to forget commands with non success exit code.
Unix user @goldilocks pointed out that maybe I am just confused by the ignoreboth directive.
set pastie
bash command-history
bash command-history
edited yesterday
Rui F Ribeiro
38.8k1479128
asked Dec 6 '12 at 10:01
Prof. Falken
12316
edited yesterday
Rui F Ribeiro
38.8k1479128
asked Dec 6 '12 at 10:01
Prof. Falken
12316
edited yesterday
Rui F Ribeiro
38.8k1479128
edited yesterday
Rui F Ribeiro
38.8k1479128
edited yesterday
Rui F Ribeiro
38.8k1479128
38.8k1479128
asked Dec 6 '12 at 10:01
Prof. Falken
12316
asked Dec 6 '12 at 10:01
Prof. Falken
12316
asked Dec 6 '12 at 10:01
Prof. Falken
12316
12316
3
To me it looks like this is not the default to forget unsucessful commands in Ubuntu. What version are you using? Could you post a link to the output of the "set" command in pasebin or something so we could see what makes it delete the commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:25
@DavidKohen, added pastebin link.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 10:43
1
The only thing I see in relation to history deletion is the fact that it ignores duplicates and lines that start with a space. Are you sure it ignores the failed commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:55
I was quite sure, but you make me doubt myself. It's not that way for "false". I will come back to this question and update it when annoyance strikes again.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 12:08
The 'this' and 'much prefer this' lead to the same place, which is a bit confusing...
– goldilocks
Dec 6 '12 at 12:27
|
show 2 more comments
3
To me it looks like this is not the default to forget unsucessful commands in Ubuntu. What version are you using? Could you post a link to the output of the "set" command in pasebin or something so we could see what makes it delete the commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:25
@DavidKohen, added pastebin link.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 10:43
1
The only thing I see in relation to history deletion is the fact that it ignores duplicates and lines that start with a space. Are you sure it ignores the failed commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:55
I was quite sure, but you make me doubt myself. It's not that way for "false". I will come back to this question and update it when annoyance strikes again.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 12:08
The 'this' and 'much prefer this' lead to the same place, which is a bit confusing...
– goldilocks
Dec 6 '12 at 12:27
3
3
To me it looks like this is not the default to forget unsucessful commands in Ubuntu. What version are you using? Could you post a link to the output of the "set" command in pasebin or something so we could see what makes it delete the commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:25
To me it looks like this is not the default to forget unsucessful commands in Ubuntu. What version are you using? Could you post a link to the output of the "set" command in pasebin or something so we could see what makes it delete the commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:25
@DavidKohen, added pastebin link.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 10:43
@DavidKohen, added pastebin link.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 10:43
1
1
The only thing I see in relation to history deletion is the fact that it ignores duplicates and lines that start with a space. Are you sure it ignores the failed commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:55
The only thing I see in relation to history deletion is the fact that it ignores duplicates and lines that start with a space. Are you sure it ignores the failed commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:55
I was quite sure, but you make me doubt myself. It's not that way for "false". I will come back to this question and update it when annoyance strikes again.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 12:08
I was quite sure, but you make me doubt myself. It's not that way for "false". I will come back to this question and update it when annoyance strikes again.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 12:08
The 'this' and 'much prefer this' lead to the same place, which is a bit confusing...
– goldilocks
Dec 6 '12 at 12:27
The 'this' and 'much prefer this' lead to the same place, which is a bit confusing...
– goldilocks
Dec 6 '12 at 12:27
|
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
I suspect that you're not doing quite what you think you're doing.
Run frobiz: , then see if that's in your history. Frobiz should normally fail - there's no such command. But it will be in your history. I suspect that you are trying something like ls *![0-9], which will fail with
ls !(*.[0-9])
base ![0-9]": event not found
The thing is; when failing like this, bash never attempts to run the command, so it doesn't get put into the history.
IGNOREBOTH is irrelevant to this - it works as advertised. Try escaping the ! (which the shell is taking to refer, ironically, to a command in the history) - eg:
ls ! ...
And it will probably work as expected.
answered Sep 1 '14 at 10:41
Graham Nicholls
19412
add a comment |
I think you are confused because of HISTCONTROL=ignoreboth. See here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/using-bash-history-more-efficiently-histcontrol
answered Dec 6 '12 at 12:51
goldilocks
61.4k13151207
add a comment |
FWIW, I use HISTFILE=~/.bash_history_$(date '+%Y%m%d_%H_%M_%S_%N').txt in my .bashrc file to make a single history file for each session, with a timestamp. That way I don't lose commands when I hit $HISTSIZE commands. history only shows me the command history for the current terminal session, but I can easily search previous bash history with grep 'what to find' .bash_history*
answered yesterday
user208145
1,22121215
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57724%2fkeep-all-commands-in-bash-history%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I suspect that you're not doing quite what you think you're doing.
Run frobiz: , then see if that's in your history. Frobiz should normally fail - there's no such command. But it will be in your history. I suspect that you are trying something like ls *![0-9], which will fail with
ls !(*.[0-9])
base ![0-9]": event not found
The thing is; when failing like this, bash never attempts to run the command, so it doesn't get put into the history.
IGNOREBOTH is irrelevant to this - it works as advertised. Try escaping the ! (which the shell is taking to refer, ironically, to a command in the history) - eg:
ls ! ...
And it will probably work as expected.
answered Sep 1 '14 at 10:41
Graham Nicholls
19412
add a comment |
I suspect that you're not doing quite what you think you're doing.
Run frobiz: , then see if that's in your history. Frobiz should normally fail - there's no such command. But it will be in your history. I suspect that you are trying something like ls *![0-9], which will fail with
ls !(*.[0-9])
base ![0-9]": event not found
The thing is; when failing like this, bash never attempts to run the command, so it doesn't get put into the history.
IGNOREBOTH is irrelevant to this - it works as advertised. Try escaping the ! (which the shell is taking to refer, ironically, to a command in the history) - eg:
ls ! ...
And it will probably work as expected.
answered Sep 1 '14 at 10:41
Graham Nicholls
19412
add a comment |
I suspect that you're not doing quite what you think you're doing.
Run frobiz: , then see if that's in your history. Frobiz should normally fail - there's no such command. But it will be in your history. I suspect that you are trying something like ls *![0-9], which will fail with
ls !(*.[0-9])
base ![0-9]": event not found
The thing is; when failing like this, bash never attempts to run the command, so it doesn't get put into the history.
IGNOREBOTH is irrelevant to this - it works as advertised. Try escaping the ! (which the shell is taking to refer, ironically, to a command in the history) - eg:
ls ! ...
And it will probably work as expected.
answered Sep 1 '14 at 10:41
Graham Nicholls
19412
I suspect that you're not doing quite what you think you're doing.
Run frobiz: , then see if that's in your history. Frobiz should normally fail - there's no such command. But it will be in your history. I suspect that you are trying something like ls *![0-9], which will fail with
ls !(*.[0-9])
base ![0-9]": event not found
The thing is; when failing like this, bash never attempts to run the command, so it doesn't get put into the history.
IGNOREBOTH is irrelevant to this - it works as advertised. Try escaping the ! (which the shell is taking to refer, ironically, to a command in the history) - eg:
ls ! ...
And it will probably work as expected.
answered Sep 1 '14 at 10:41
Graham Nicholls
19412
answered Sep 1 '14 at 10:41
Graham Nicholls
19412
answered Sep 1 '14 at 10:41
Graham Nicholls
19412
answered Sep 1 '14 at 10:41
Graham Nicholls
19412
19412
add a comment |
add a comment |
I think you are confused because of HISTCONTROL=ignoreboth. See here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/using-bash-history-more-efficiently-histcontrol
answered Dec 6 '12 at 12:51
goldilocks
61.4k13151207
add a comment |
I think you are confused because of HISTCONTROL=ignoreboth. See here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/using-bash-history-more-efficiently-histcontrol
answered Dec 6 '12 at 12:51
goldilocks
61.4k13151207
add a comment |
I think you are confused because of HISTCONTROL=ignoreboth. See here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/using-bash-history-more-efficiently-histcontrol
answered Dec 6 '12 at 12:51
goldilocks
61.4k13151207
I think you are confused because of HISTCONTROL=ignoreboth. See here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/using-bash-history-more-efficiently-histcontrol
answered Dec 6 '12 at 12:51
goldilocks
61.4k13151207
answered Dec 6 '12 at 12:51
goldilocks
61.4k13151207
answered Dec 6 '12 at 12:51
goldilocks
61.4k13151207
answered Dec 6 '12 at 12:51
goldilocks
61.4k13151207
61.4k13151207
add a comment |
add a comment |
FWIW, I use HISTFILE=~/.bash_history_$(date '+%Y%m%d_%H_%M_%S_%N').txt in my .bashrc file to make a single history file for each session, with a timestamp. That way I don't lose commands when I hit $HISTSIZE commands. history only shows me the command history for the current terminal session, but I can easily search previous bash history with grep 'what to find' .bash_history*
answered yesterday
user208145
1,22121215
add a comment |
FWIW, I use HISTFILE=~/.bash_history_$(date '+%Y%m%d_%H_%M_%S_%N').txt in my .bashrc file to make a single history file for each session, with a timestamp. That way I don't lose commands when I hit $HISTSIZE commands. history only shows me the command history for the current terminal session, but I can easily search previous bash history with grep 'what to find' .bash_history*
answered yesterday
user208145
1,22121215
add a comment |
FWIW, I use HISTFILE=~/.bash_history_$(date '+%Y%m%d_%H_%M_%S_%N').txt in my .bashrc file to make a single history file for each session, with a timestamp. That way I don't lose commands when I hit $HISTSIZE commands. history only shows me the command history for the current terminal session, but I can easily search previous bash history with grep 'what to find' .bash_history*
answered yesterday
user208145
1,22121215
FWIW, I use HISTFILE=~/.bash_history_$(date '+%Y%m%d_%H_%M_%S_%N').txt in my .bashrc file to make a single history file for each session, with a timestamp. That way I don't lose commands when I hit $HISTSIZE commands. history only shows me the command history for the current terminal session, but I can easily search previous bash history with grep 'what to find' .bash_history*
answered yesterday
user208145
1,22121215
answered yesterday
user208145
1,22121215
answered yesterday
user208145
1,22121215
answered yesterday
user208145
1,22121215
1,22121215
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57724%2fkeep-all-commands-in-bash-history%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
To me it looks like this is not the default to forget unsucessful commands in Ubuntu. What version are you using? Could you post a link to the output of the "set" command in pasebin or something so we could see what makes it delete the commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:25
@DavidKohen, added pastebin link.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 10:43
1
The only thing I see in relation to history deletion is the fact that it ignores duplicates and lines that start with a space. Are you sure it ignores the failed commands?
– Didi Kohen
Dec 6 '12 at 10:55
I was quite sure, but you make me doubt myself. It's not that way for "false". I will come back to this question and update it when annoyance strikes again.
– Prof. Falken
Dec 6 '12 at 12:08
The 'this' and 'much prefer this' lead to the same place, which is a bit confusing...
– goldilocks
Dec 6 '12 at 12:27