Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
Thomas, et al -- ...and then Thomas Roessler said... % % I've just released the next mutt beta, version 1.3.24i. I see the new PATCHES file and its use in the ChangeLog. Yay :-) One thing that I note is that, unless I'm confused (not out of the question by any means), the patches will be listed in the PATCHES file and thus in `mutt -v` in the reverse of the order in which they were applied. That is, if I ran tar xpfz mutt-1.3.24i.tar.gz cd mutt-1.3.24 patch ../compressed patch ../outlook make ./mutt -v I would see ... patch.outlook patch.compressed in my results. Is this desirable? Unfortunately there's no OS-portable way to reverse the PATCHES file's order; not all OSs have tac (or is it rev?) or perl. Can the patch that updates PATCHES append the patch to the BOTTOM of the file, perhaps by inserting right before a THIS-IS-THE-END-OF-THE-FILE magic token that patchlist.sh can recognize and ignore? Perhaps it's trivial, but with the cocktail I use it's quite important to know which patches were applied in which order -- and I'd have to have to think bottom-up :-) TIA HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg21382/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
David T-G wrote: I see the new PATCHES file and its use in the ChangeLog. Yay :-) Apropos the PATCHES file: I just wanted to apply the patch-1.3.24.vvv.initials patch mentioned a few postings above (the only other patch I use in addition is patch-1.3.24.vvv.nntp). In both cases -p1 is the only patch option I use. For both patch orders (first initials, then nntp or vice versa) I get the message: The next patch would create the file PATCHES, which already exists! Assume -R? [n] I don't know much about patches, but I think this was not intended. Or was it my fault in patching wrong? -volker -- http://die-Moells.de/ * http://Stama90.de/ * http://ScriptDale.de/ Very few profundities can be expressed in less than 80 characters. msg21386/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
that new threading (was [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).)
Daniel, et al -- First, I vaguely recall your mention of further improved threading code on the way. If my questions will all be answered in the Next Coming (er, Coding :-) then please let me know and otherwise ignore this. ...and then Daniel Eisenbud said... % % On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 02:46:07PM -0800, Owner of many system processes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % Daniel Eisenbud wrote: % $hide_missing only hides the leading message if they can sensibly be % hidden. ... % were other messages in this thread), but isn't this what the '*' denotes % in the first place? having both is a bit visually distracting % % Here's the deal: the asterisk means that the message was attached by That I gather. % subject. The question mark denotes a missing reference. So if a This I also understand -- but it seems to be too over-the-top. I've been known to clear out everything except a final useful message deep in a thread -- and so I have a single message with a zillion question marks in front of it. Ick, even though I can see that it has missing references; it's not even part of a thread any more, though! I created a little test mailbox which can be found at http://mutt.justpickone.org/mutt-build-cocktail/box-threads for identical playing, and it seems to expose at least one problem as well as raise some questions. I've taken the liberty of cutting off the end of the sample displays so that I don't overflow the line length, but when I open this little mailbox with 1.3.23 I get the expected -1 ns- Nov 30 Thomas Roessler #002 [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i i 3 - Dec 07 Thorsten Haude #007 Re: A couple of probably 10 r - Dec 08 Nicolas Rachins #004 Re: scripting/batchmode 'cuz I have 'exec collapse-all' at the bottom of my muttrc file. When I open this with 1.3.24, however, I instead see -1 ns- Nov 30 Thomas Roessler #002 [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i i 3 - Dec 07 Thorsten Haude ( 26) ?-Re: A couple of probab 4 r - Dec 07 Thomas Hurst( 29) |-?-Re: A couple of prob 5 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 18) | |-?-?-?- 6 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 29) | | `-?-?-?- 7 r -@ Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 16) | `-?- 8 sF Dec 08 To Mutt Users' ( 54) | `- 9 s-@ Dec 08 Prahlad Vaidyan ( 42) `-Re: A couple of probab 10 r - Dec 08 Nicolas Rachins #004 Re: scripting/batchmode and wonder why the second thread isn't collapsed and if it has something to do with the missing reference at the top of the thread. If I open that thread in 1.3.23 I see 1 ns- Nov 30 Thomas Roessler #002 [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i i -3 - Dec 07 Thorsten Haude ( 26) Re: A couple of probably 4 r - Dec 07 Thomas Hurst( 29) |* 5 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 18) | |- 6 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 29) | |- 7 r -@ Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 16) | `- 8 sF Dec 08 To Mutt Users' ( 54) | `- 9 s-@ Dec 08 Prahlad Vaidyan ( 42) `* 10 r - Dec 08 Nicolas Rachins #004 Re: scripting/batchmode and we see that, while a couple of items were attached by virtue of subject (though Prahlad's message, interestingly enough, did not appear to have any missing refs according to 1.3.24 above), the threading looks manageable and appears in the same order. Just to test the why-it-doesn't-collapse theory, I used Cedric's thread patch to break the thread at message 3 (where it's not attached to anything but is simply dangling, so to speak); sure enough (after syncing the box to write the change), starting 1.3.24 fresh results in a lovely -1 ns- Nov 30 Thomas Roessler #002 [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i i 3 - Dec 07 Thorsten Haude #007 Re: A couple of probably 10 r - Dec 08 Nicolas Rachins #004 Re: scripting/batchmode as one would hope. And, for those of us who would prefer to have neat displays over complete thread histories (when the rest of the thread isn't there), breaking off message 4 and relinking below 3, and then breaking off message 5 and relinking under 4, looks like 1 ns- Nov 30 Thomas Roessler #002 [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i i 3 - Dec 07 Thorsten Haude ( 26) Re: A couple of probably 4 r - Dec 07 Thomas Hurst( 29) |- -5 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 18) | |- 6 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 29) | |-?-?-?-?-?-?- 7 r -@ Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 16) | `-?- 8 sF Dec 08 To Mutt Users' ( 54) | `- 9 s-@ Dec 08 Prahlad Vaidyan ( 42) `*?- 10 r - Dec 08 Nicolas Rachins #004 Re: scripting/batchmode in 1.3.24 -- so we *can* have pretty displays of our archived partial threads if we want to take the time to break and relink. Note that the missing reference for message 6 are even longer now; I bet that they probably add up to the total of references missing in message 5 and message 6 above and are all now moved down. I'd prefer to have
Re: that new threading (was [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).)
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 02:50:44PM -0500, David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % subject. The question mark denotes a missing reference. So if a This I also understand -- but it seems to be too over-the-top. I've been known to clear out everything except a final useful message deep in a thread -- and so I have a single message with a zillion question marks in front of it. Ick, even though I can see that it has missing references; it's not even part of a thread any more, though! This is what $hide_missing is for. Set it. But for getting rid of long rows of question marks within a thread, I'm working on code that will make hide_missing do that too. I created a little test mailbox which can be found at http://mutt.justpickone.org/mutt-build-cocktail/box-threads for identical playing, and it seems to expose at least one problem as well as raise some questions. I've taken the liberty of cutting off the end of the sample displays so that I don't overflow the line length, but when I open this little mailbox with 1.3.23 I get the expected -1 ns- Nov 30 Thomas Roessler #002 [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i i 3 - Dec 07 Thorsten Haude #007 Re: A couple of probably 10 r - Dec 08 Nicolas Rachins #004 Re: scripting/batchmode 'cuz I have 'exec collapse-all' at the bottom of my muttrc file. When I open this with 1.3.24, however, I instead see -1 ns- Nov 30 Thomas Roessler #002 [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i i 3 - Dec 07 Thorsten Haude ( 26) ?-Re: A couple of probab 4 r - Dec 07 Thomas Hurst( 29) |-?-Re: A couple of prob 5 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 18) | |-?-?-?- 6 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 29) | | `-?-?-?- 7 r -@ Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 16) | `-?- 8 sF Dec 08 To Mutt Users' ( 54) | `- 9 s-@ Dec 08 Prahlad Vaidyan ( 42) `-Re: A couple of probab 10 r - Dec 08 Nicolas Rachins #004 Re: scripting/batchmode and wonder why the second thread isn't collapsed and if it has something to do with the missing reference at the top of the thread. If I open that thread in 1.3.23 I see I'll look into the thread-collapsing thing. 1 ns- Nov 30 Thomas Roessler #002 [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i i -3 - Dec 07 Thorsten Haude ( 26) Re: A couple of probably 4 r - Dec 07 Thomas Hurst( 29) |* 5 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 18) | |- 6 - Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 29) | |- 7 r -@ Dec 08 Thomas Hurst( 16) | `- 8 sF Dec 08 To Mutt Users' ( 54) | `- 9 s-@ Dec 08 Prahlad Vaidyan ( 42) `* 10 r - Dec 08 Nicolas Rachins #004 Re: scripting/batchmode and we see that, while a couple of items were attached by virtue of subject (though Prahlad's message, interestingly enough, did not appear to have any missing refs according to 1.3.24 above), the threading looks manageable and appears in the same order. Prahlad's message does have a missing parent in the new display: it's the missing parent that's at the top of the thread. [...] I'd prefer to have $hide_missing hide *all* of the missing reference indicators and give me a display like in 1.3.23 -- all of the clips above are with $hide_missing set! Hiding all the missing messages will make the thread display less comprehensible, since things that aren't siblings will be grouped together in a way that looks like they're siblings, but they won't be sorted in the right order, the next-subthread command et al. will work in a strange way, etc. I think I know how to achieve a happy middle ground. Patch coming, hopefully later today. -Daniel -- Daniel E. Eisenbud [EMAIL PROTECTED] We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms. --Henry David Thoreau, Walking
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
Hi Volker, * Volker Moell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [12/09/01 20:40]: David T-G wrote: I see the new PATCHES file and its use in the ChangeLog. Yay :-) Apropos the PATCHES file: I just wanted to apply the patch-1.3.24.vvv.initials patch mentioned a few postings above (the only other patch I use in addition is patch-1.3.24.vvv.nntp). In both cases -p1 is the only patch option I use. For both patch orders (first initials, then nntp or vice versa) I get the message: The next patch would create the file PATCHES, which already exists! Assume -R? [n] I don't know much about patches, but I think this was not intended. Or was it my fault in patching wrong? Well, in the patch you have this: diff -udprP mutt-1.3.24.orig/PATCHES mutt-1.3.24/PATCHES --- mutt-1.3.24.orig/PATCHESMon Nov 26 21:16:52 2001 +++ mutt-1.3.24/PATCHES Mon Dec 3 12:20:45 2001 @@ 0,0 +1 @@ +vvv.nntp But it really should be: diff -udprP mutt-1.3.24.orig/PATCHES mutt-1.3.24/PATCHES --- mutt-1.3.24.orig/PATCHESMon Nov 26 21:16:52 2001 +++ mutt-1.3.24/PATCHES Mon Dec 3 12:20:45 2001 @@ -1,0 +1 @@ +vvv.nntp for the line to be inserted in PATCHES, and solve this problem when the file already exist. I made the same mistake at first! As well as another one (now fixed): mixing diffs of p0 and p1 form in the same patch. Weirdly enough, this made Thorsten's version of patch (2.5.3) complain, while mine (2.5) was perfectly happy with this. Regards, -- Cedric
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
On Sun, Dec 9, 2001, Daniel Eisenbud wrote: Okay, I read this and am still confused about something. I understand about the '?' and '*', but why the multiple '?'s? A series of referenced messages that don't exist. Oh, the References: header. Gotcha. :) Looking forward to the new patch to clean up these messages in the index... -Ken
Re: that new threading (was [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).)
Daniel -- ...and then Daniel Eisenbud said... % % On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 02:50:44PM -0500, David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % % subject. The question mark denotes a missing reference. So if a % % This I also understand -- but it seems to be too over-the-top. I've been ... % % This is what $hide_missing is for. Set it. But for getting rid of long But it was -- in all of the displays I pasted in! For some threads in a large mailbox I could see a difference with $hide_missing (oh how I am starting to wish for vi-like shortcut settings :-) but for many I couldn't and only for Nicolas' message (msg 10) in this test case. % rows of question marks within a thread, I'm working on code that will % make hide_missing do that too. Oh, goodie :-) % % I created a little test mailbox which can be found at % % http://mutt.justpickone.org/mutt-build-cocktail/box-threads This is still there, in case anyone else wants to poke. ... % and wonder why the second thread isn't collapsed and if it has something % to do with the missing reference at the top of the thread. If I open % that thread in 1.3.23 I see % % I'll look into the thread-collapsing thing. Thanks. BTW, I can't even collapse it manually, and if I'm not on the first message (number 3) then my cursor jumps there when I try. ... % subject (though Prahlad's message, interestingly enough, did not appear % to have any missing refs according to 1.3.24 above), the threading looks % manageable and appears in the same order. % % Prahlad's message does have a missing parent in the new display: it's % the missing parent that's at the top of the thread. Ahhh... So it was attached by subject because its parent is so early that it's not anywhere else. No, wait a minute... It should have the same parent reference as the first message, right? In the 1.3.24 picture there's no question mark -- even when I turn off $hide_missing. % % [...] % I'd prefer to have $hide_missing hide *all* of the missing reference % indicators and give me a display like in 1.3.23 -- all of the clips above % are with $hide_missing set! % % Hiding all the missing messages will make the thread display less % comprehensible, since things that aren't siblings will be grouped % together in a way that looks like they're siblings, but they won't be Hmmm... I suppose I can get the idea of how this would cause problems, but I can't yet see an example. But, as I see below, perhaps I won't have to worry about that... % sorted in the right order, the next-subthread command et al. will work % in a strange way, etc. I think I know how to achieve a happy middle Excellent :-) % ground. Patch coming, hopefully later today. Thanks a bunch! % % -Daniel % % -- % Daniel E. Eisenbud % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % % We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of % undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed % hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms. % --Henry David Thoreau, Walking :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg21415/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: that new threading (was [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).)
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel -- ...and then Daniel Eisenbud said... % % On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 02:50:44PM -0500, David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % % subject. The question mark denotes a missing reference. So if a % % This I also understand -- but it seems to be too over-the-top. I've been ... % % This is what $hide_missing is for. Set it. But for getting rid of long But it was -- in all of the displays I pasted in! For some threads in a large mailbox I could see a difference with $hide_missing (oh how I am starting to wish for vi-like shortcut settings :-) but for many I couldn't and only for Nicolas' message (msg 10) in this test case. Right, but the specific scenario you described in that paragraph (keeping just one message from late in a thread) would be taken care of by $hide_missing. ... % and wonder why the second thread isn't collapsed and if it has something % to do with the missing reference at the top of the thread. If I open % that thread in 1.3.23 I see % % I'll look into the thread-collapsing thing. Thanks. BTW, I can't even collapse it manually, and if I'm not on the first message (number 3) then my cursor jumps there when I try. This is consistent with my hypothesis of what was wrong. The message-collapsing code is utter crap, IMHO, and I didn't have the energy to rip it all out and rewrite it from scratch before, so I tried to just change what I needed to change, and I obviously missed this detail. I bet it will be an easy fix (and I still do mean to rewrite the whole thing sometime.) ... % subject (though Prahlad's message, interestingly enough, did not appear % to have any missing refs according to 1.3.24 above), the threading looks % manageable and appears in the same order. % % Prahlad's message does have a missing parent in the new display: it's % the missing parent that's at the top of the thread. Ahhh... So it was attached by subject because its parent is so early that it's not anywhere else. No, wait a minute... It should have the same parent reference as the first message, right? In the 1.3.24 picture there's no question mark -- even when I turn off $hide_missing. The question mark at the top of the thread is the parent of his message in 1.3.24. Really. Go look at the thread tree again -- his message is a sibling of the top message in the thread, which also has that question mark as its parent. % [...] % I'd prefer to have $hide_missing hide *all* of the missing reference % indicators and give me a display like in 1.3.23 -- all of the clips above % are with $hide_missing set! % % Hiding all the missing messages will make the thread display less % comprehensible, since things that aren't siblings will be grouped % together in a way that looks like they're siblings, but they won't be Hmmm... I suppose I can get the idea of how this would cause problems, but I can't yet see an example. But, as I see below, perhaps I won't have to worry about that... For instance, 1 foo 2 |-?-bar 3 | `-baz 4 |-grault 5 `-quux if $sort_aux is set to date, it is possible that bar is before grault and quux, but baz is after both of them. So with the question mark removed, the thread tree would look like 1 foo 2 |-bar 3 |-baz 4 |-grault 5 `-quux and baz would appear to be in the wrong place. Additionally, next-subthread and previous-subthread won't appear to work quite right, though some of that may be that they haven't been quite properly adapted to the new threading code -- I'll think a bit more about what they should do. Part of the problem with these commands is that it's not entirely clear what the right thing for them to do is, even under simpler circumstances. -Daniel -- Daniel E. Eisenbud [EMAIL PROTECTED] We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms. --Henry David Thoreau, Walking
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
Hi all! On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Thomas Roessler wrote: I've just released the next mutt beta, version 1.3.24i. Some of the more interesting changes against mutt-1.3.23i: Just a question: are you also announcing to mutt-annunce? I've subscribed it, but never read any announcments... Ciao for now, Dirk -- Dirk Ruediger, Rostock, Germany begin:vcard n:Ruediger;Dirk tel;fax:+49-(0)381-44 60 88 tel;work:+49-(0)381-40 24 154 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.rostock.zgdv.de/ org:ZGDV Zentrum für Graphische Datenverarbeitung e.V.;CAD Teleservices adr:;;Joachim-Jungius-Straße 11;D-18059 Rostock;;;Germany version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Dipl.-Ing. fn:Dirk Ruediger end:vcard
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 23:21:27 -0800, Dairy Wall Limey wrote: hrmm this makes sense... setting this does change the number of '?'s... putting: set hide_missing gives one question mark, Here, I get several question marks ($hide_missing set). :( is there a way to hide the question marks entirely as in older versions of mutt? I'd like this too. i find them somewhat distracting. maybe i just need to get used to them. They are a problem in very long threads. -- Vincent Lefèvre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Web: http://www.vinc17.org/ - 100% validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
Thomas Roessler [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: I've just released the next mutt beta, version 1.3.24i. And I've just updated the web site to this version, since it is a public beta. I've updated the official release areas (news, changes, manual, etc.) already, and I'll update the user-contributed info tonight when I get home. -- Jeremy Blosser msg20879/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 02:32:19PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 23:21:27 -0800, Dairy Wall Limey wrote: hrmm this makes sense... setting this does change the number of '?'s... putting: set hide_missing gives one question mark, Here, I get several question marks ($hide_missing set). :( $hide_missing only hides the leading message if they can sensibly be hidden. is there a way to hide the question marks entirely as in older versions of mutt? I'd like this too. Well, this would lead to a certain amount of confusion, since the thread navigation commands know now that certain messages aren't really siblings, for instance. But hiding all the question marks would lose this visual information, so those commands would appear to fail randomly. However, this would be reasonably easy to do codewise. A better solution, though, would be to show only the question marks necessary to disambiguate things. This is possible but will take a little bit of work. I'll look into it. They are a problem in very long threads. I had a patch that added a $narrow_tree variable years ago, which made the thread tree take up only half as much screen real estate. Maybe it's time to resurrect this too. -Daniel -- Daniel E. Eisenbud [EMAIL PROTECTED] We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms. --Henry David Thoreau, Walking
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 15:09:36 -0500, Daniel Eisenbud wrote: I had a patch that added a $narrow_tree variable years ago, which made the thread tree take up only half as much screen real estate. Maybe it's time to resurrect this too. Yes, I updated it to apply it to the latest Mutt versions (at least up to 1.3.22.1) and still use it. But it isn't even sufficient for very long threads. -- Vincent Lefèvre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Web: http://www.vinc17.org/ - 100% validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
Vincent Lefevre wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 15:09:36 -0500, Daniel Eisenbud wrote: I had a patch that added a $narrow_tree variable years ago, which made the thread tree take up only half as much screen real estate. Maybe it's time to resurrect this too. Yes, I updated it to apply it to the latest Mutt versions (at least up to 1.3.22.1) and still use it. But it isn't even sufficient for very long threads. has this feature been in the mainstream release in previous versions? the behavior appears different from that of 1.3.23i. i'd just like to restore the behavior of 1.3.23 (maybe i should just revert) so i guess my question is should there be a difference, given the same configuration files. i was perfectly happy with how it worked before. -- William Yardley System Administrator, Newdream Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/gpg.asc
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
Daniel Eisenbud wrote: $hide_missing only hides the leading message if they can sensibly be hidden. sorry... one more thing: messages that have an asterisk (ie mutt is guessing based on subject line or whatever) seem to be showing up with a '?' after the asterisk, even in a thread that's new. obviously the '?' makes a bit of sense, (since we dont _know_ if there were other messages in this thread), but isn't this what the '*' denotes in the first place? having both is a bit visually distracting anyway i understand now basically what the purpose of the '?'s is... however i do think it will confuse people switching from earlier versions. it confused me at least. so maybe at least put a prominant notice about this in the release notes (i didn't see one) so that people don't think mutt is broken. -- William Yardley System Administrator, Newdream Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/gpg.asc
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 02:46:07PM -0800, Owner of many system processes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Eisenbud wrote: $hide_missing only hides the leading message if they can sensibly be hidden. sorry... one more thing: messages that have an asterisk (ie mutt is guessing based on subject line or whatever) seem to be showing up with a '?' after the asterisk, even in a thread that's new. obviously the '?' makes a bit of sense, (since we dont _know_ if there were other messages in this thread), but isn't this what the '*' denotes in the first place? having both is a bit visually distracting Here's the deal: the asterisk means that the message was attached by subject. The question mark denotes a missing reference. So if a message has an in-reply-to: header referring to a message not in the mailbox, its arrow will end with ?-. Mutt then, as before, tries to attach the message by subject, which if it does, will result in an arrow like `*?-. Having both tells you that there's a missing parent of the current message, and that there were no more references so the message was attached by subject. If there's no in-reply-to header, the parent might well be in the mailbox, but mutt has no way of knowing, and the arrow just looks like `*, as it did before. This is not a bug. anyway i understand now basically what the purpose of the '?'s is... however i do think it will confuse people switching from earlier versions. it confused me at least. so maybe at least put a prominant notice about this in the release notes (i didn't see one) so that people don't think mutt is broken. Agreed! -Daniel -- Daniel E. Eisenbud [EMAIL PROTECTED] We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms. --Henry David Thoreau, Walking
[Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
I've just released the next mutt beta, version 1.3.24i. Some of the more interesting changes against mutt-1.3.23i: - New and improved threading code from Daniel Eisenbud. See also $duplicate_threads, $hide_missing, $thread_received. - ANSI colors in the builtin pager are now controlled by a variable $allow_ansi, and are turned OFF by default. The colorization of attachment markers (and PGP output messages) in the pager is done a bit different, and more difficult to cheat. In particular, it's not possible to consistently trick two instances of mutt which were started at different points of time. - There's a $wrapmargin variable which gives users some control over mutt's wrapping in the pager, and in the text/plain; format=flowed handler. The default value of this variable is 0. - Of course, bug fixes. There's an outstanding mail loss problem with this version: On system where write(2) lies about the success of an operation (for instance, with NFS folders or when quotas are enabled), mutt may not detect such errors when writing to mbox folders, possibly even losing mail. The bug is mutt's, and will be fixed next week (I hope). Since it's present in all mutt versions, there's no point in holding up this release due to the problem. See http://bugs.guug.de/Bugs/db/89/895.html for details. Mutt 1.3.24i can be found at ftp://ftp.mutt.org/pub/mutt/. Have a nice week-end. -- Thomas Roesslerhttp://log.does-not-exist.org/ msg20819/pgp00011.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
Thomas Roessler wrote: I've just released the next mutt beta, version 1.3.24i. Some of the more interesting changes against mutt-1.3.23i: - New and improved threading code from Daniel Eisenbud. See also $duplicate_threads, $hide_missing, $thread_received. i'm sorry if i'm missing something obvious, but since installing 1.3.24, the trees that indicate threads are showing up a bit funny. each '-' is preceeded with a question mark. is this a bug, or is there something else wrong? ie: - now appears as: ?- --- now appears as: ?-?-?- this happens with ascii_chars set and with it unset. i tried a couple different termcap entries i'm using Eterm (checked in xterm as well and got the same response). i had originally tried patching mutt with a couple of usual patches, but i tried compiling it without them and had the same results. this is on a debian linux machine (i'm viewing it on a FreeBSD machine). zugzug% /usr/bin/mutt -v Mutt 1.3.24i (2001-11-29) Copyright (C) 1996-2001 Michael R. Elkins and others. Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'. Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `mutt -vv' for details. System: Linux 2.2.14 (i686) [using ncurses 5.0] Compile options: -DOMAIN +DEBUG -HOMESPOOL -USE_SETGID +USE_DOTLOCK -DL_STANDALONE +USE_FCNTL -USE_FLOCK -USE_POP -USE_IMAP -USE_GSS -USE_SSL -USE_SASL +HAVE_REGCOMP -USE_GNU_REGEX +HAVE_COLOR +HAVE_START_COLOR +HAVE_TYPEAHEAD +HAVE_BKGDSET +HAVE_CURS_SET +HAVE_META +HAVE_RESIZETERM +HAVE_PGP -BUFFY_SIZE -EXACT_ADDRESS -SUN_ATTACHMENT +ENABLE_NLS -LOCALES_HACK +HAVE_WC_FUNCS +HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET +HAVE_LANGINFO_YESEXPR +HAVE_ICONV -ICONV_NONTRANS +HAVE_GETSID -HAVE_GETADDRINFO ISPELL=/usr/bin/ispell SENDMAIL=/usr/sbin/sendmail MAILPATH=/var/mail PKGDATADIR=/usr/local/share/mutt SYSCONFDIR=/etc EXECSHELL=/bin/sh -MIXMASTER To contact the developers, please mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. To report a bug, please use the flea(1) utility. any ideas? william yardley newdream network.
Re: [Announce] mutt-1.3.24i is out (BETA).
David Champion wrote: Dairy Wall Limey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [responding on list again in case someone else has any ideas] i'm sorry if i'm missing something obvious, but since installing 1.3.24, the trees that indicate threads are showing up a bit funny. each '-' is preceeded with a question mark. is this a bug, or is there something else wrong? I think that this is what $hide_missing toggles. hrmm this makes sense... setting this does change the number of '?'s... putting: set hide_missing gives one question mark, and putting: unset hide_missing (or set hide_missing=no) gives lots. is there a way to hide the question marks entirely as in older versions of mutt? i find them somewhat distracting. maybe i just need to get used to them. threads ARE normal if no deleted messages in a thread exist, so the question marks are definitely related to missing messages. i'm using Maildir if that makes a difference. i hope that helps... perhaps i'm missing a configuration option or something. on a related note, if i set sysconfdir to /etc, shouldn't: make install put the new 'Muttrc' into /etc ? the one on my system was way out of date. in any event, thanks for the info! will
