Re: not noticing entries

2011-04-13 Thread Sam Steingold
* Sam Steingold f...@tah.bet [2011-04-12 10:45:54 -0400]: with 2.36 devo I noticed some very weird behavior: when I hit : a new bbdb record is created _without_ any net field. I see it now all the time with all new records. net field is not filled. -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/)

Re: not noticing entries

2011-04-13 Thread Roland Winkler
On Tue Apr 12 2011 Sam Steingold wrote: with 2.36 devo I noticed some very weird behavior: in gnus, when I see a message from a known user (with the real name in the message being an AKA), it is _not_ marked with * and bbdb window is _not_ shown, and when I hit : a new bbdb record is created

Re: not noticing entries

2011-04-13 Thread Sam Steingold
* Roland Winkler jvax...@tah.bet [2011-04-13 09:59:40 -0500]: Is 2.36 devo on git somewhere (I cannot find it right now). this is cvs head. -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on CentOS release 5.5 (Final) X 11.0.60900031 http://memri.org http://camera.org http://pmw.org.il

Re: not noticing entries

2011-04-13 Thread Barak A. Pearlmutter
with 2.36 devo (AKA the head of the sourceforge CVS repo) I noticed some very weird behavior: in gnus, when I see a message from a known user (with the real name in the message being an AKA), it is _not_ marked with * and bbdb window is _not_ shown, and when I hit : a new bbdb record is

Re: not noticing entries

2011-04-13 Thread Roland Winkler
On Wed Apr 13 2011 Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: There have been a bunch of hacks in git for the debian bbdb 2.x package, including a bunch of bug fixes. Can you check if the problem still appears there? git clone git://github.com/barak/BBDB.git will give you the tip of that development

not noticing entries

2011-04-12 Thread Sam Steingold
with 2.36 devo I noticed some very weird behavior: in gnus, when I see a message from a known user (with the real name in the message being an AKA), it is _not_ marked with * and bbdb window is _not_ shown, and when I hit : a new bbdb record is created _without_ any net field (because, apparently,