Hallo Leute, heute sind diese Patches auf mutt-users angekommen. Ich sende die Patches und die Nachrichten dazu mal hierher, weil das ja gewollt war. Viel Spaß damit.
----- Forwarded message from Daniel Eisenbud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- Das ist die allgemeine Diskussion On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:16:08PM -0500, David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: |> % The more I run 1.3.24, the more I am appreciating the multiple '?'s in |> ... |> % Instead of something like -?-?-?-?- , maybe things like -?4?-> or the |> % like, replacing all the '?'s with a number representing them? Seems |> % like a happy medium. |> |> That sounds pretty cool. Daniel is working on the code and might be able |> to incorporate this pretty easily; drop him a note (in case he doesn't |> get to his list mail before finishing his updates). | |I've thought about doing this. I may well do so, but it's nontrivial to |add and I'm about to be out of the reach of the internet (mostly, at |least) until January. I'll bring my laptop along on my travels, though, |so perhaps I'll get some coding done along the way. With the patch I |just sent to mutt-dev and mutt-users it's pretty much all or nothing, |though I with hide_missing set mutt still does show the necessary amount |of information to make it clear why it's sorting the way it does. Tell |me what you think! (I'll still be in email range until sometime |Friday.) Anyway, if you don't mind the question marks in principle, now |having hide_missing unset unless you're dealing with a really wide |sparse thread, and then toggling it, is probably a good way to go (and |definitely what I plan to do.) Die Nachricht gehört zu dem einzelnen ungepackten Patch (patch-1.3.24-de-new_threads.1) |I've been receiving reports of occasional thread sorting crashes. I |believe that these may all occur when we are incrementally resorting |the mailbox, though I don't know for sure, and have been totally |unable to reproduce the problem myself. I will be travelling and |unable to work more on this until January, however, so I thought I |would toss out this patch, which I hope will turn out to be an |effective temporary workaround. The only harm it can do is slow down |resorting when new mail arrives, but even so that will still be |dramatically faster, in many cases, than the old threading code. I |will track down the real problem (if nobody beats me to it) and |reenable the incremental sorting when I get back. Die Nachricht gehört zu patch-1.3.24-de-new_threads.1-2.gz und patch-1.3.24-de-new_threads.2.gz |The attached patch makes it possible to collapse threads whose root is |missing and whose first present message has no descendants, which was |previously not possible because of an oversight. It also makes the |$hide_missing option much more thorough, making the display much more |like that of mutt-1.3.23 when $hide_missing is set. The first |attachment is a patch designed to be applied on top of the previous |threading crash workaround (though it doesn't touch the same code, so |you can also apply it without the workaround, if you want) and the |second attachment includes both the fixes mentioned above and the |workaround. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- >Programmieren in C++ hält die grauen Zellen am Leben. Es schaerft alle fuenf Sinne: den Schwachsinn, den Bloedsinn, den Wahnsinn, den Unsinn und den Stumpfsinn. [Felix von Leitner und Holger Veit in doc]
diff -durp mutt-1.3.24/sort.c mutt-1.3.24.working/sort.c --- mutt-1.3.24/sort.c Mon Nov 12 04:53:54 2001 +++ mutt-1.3.24.working/sort.c Wed Dec 12 18:54:23 2001 @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ void mutt_sort_headers (CONTEXT *ctx, in THREAD *thread, *top; sort_t *sortfunc; + init = 1; /* XXX temporary bug workaround (hopefully!) */ unset_option (OPTNEEDRESORT); if (!ctx)
patch-1.3.24-de-new_threads.1-2.gz
Description: Binary data
patch-1.3.24-de-new_threads.2.gz
Description: Binary data
msg16471/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature