On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 00:07:59 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani at nikula.org> wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:44:29 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins at > finestructure.net> wrote: > Right. I'd just like to make sure the approach I've taken (particularly > patch 1 in the set as it touches the lib) is acceptable before spending > time on testing and documentation etc. Indeed patches 1 and 2 changed > fundamentally between v1 and v2 after some chats on IRC. If the comments > now are favourable, I'll write the tests and documentation. (Though I > guess I have to admit the tests would've been beneficial to me already > now...)
I would say that since this is functionality that we do eventually want, a known_broken test suite that tests for the functionality we want to see would be very useful right from the start, even before any patches to supply the functionality are made. With the tests in hand we can iterate over exactly what we want the ui to provide, and then worry about the specific implementation. The documentation can come later with the actual feature patches. jamie. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20111031/a0ac4e5e/attachment.pgp>