I'm marking this as moreinfo since the patch as is doesn't seem to
satisfy people. Personally I think the key point is that
e.g. date:2012-12-10 should do something reasonable (presumably return
all messages on that day, pax questions about timezone); whether we need
new prefixes I'm less convince
I'm marking this as moreinfo since the patch as is doesn't seem to
satisfy people. Personally I think the key point is that
e.g. date:2012-12-10 should do something reasonable (presumably return
all messages on that day, pax questions about timezone); whether we need
new prefixes I'm less convince
On Sun, Dec 09 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 08 2012, David Bremner wrote:
>>> Patch? Concrete wording suggestion?
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> It would be nice to not require both endpoints to be specified in date
>> searches. For exa
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08 2012, David Bremner wrote:
>> Patch? Concrete wording suggestion?
>
> How about:
>
> It would be nice to not require both endpoints to be specified in date
> searches. For example it would be nice to be able to say things like
>
On Sun, Dec 09 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 08 2012, David Bremner wrote:
>>> Patch? Concrete wording suggestion?
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> It would be nice to not require both endpoints to be specified in date
>> searches. For exampl
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08 2012, David Bremner wrote:
>> Patch? Concrete wording suggestion?
>
> How about:
>
> It would be nice to not require both endpoints to be specified in date
> searches. For example it would be nice to be able to say things like
>
On Sat, Dec 08 2012, David Bremner wrote:
> Patch? Concrete wording suggestion?
How about:
It would be nice to not require both endpoints to be specified in date
searches. For example it would be nice to be able to say things like
"date:2009-01-1", to specify a search over a particular day, or
On Sat, Dec 08 2012, David Bremner wrote:
> Patch? Concrete wording suggestion?
How about:
It would be nice to not require both endpoints to be specified in date
searches. For example it would be nice to be able to say things like
"date:2009-01-1", to specify a search over a particular day, or
Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
> On Fri, Dec 07 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Fine by me. I was just trying to clean up the file a bit, that's
>> all. The only downside I can think of is potential new users stumbling
>> on this and thinking we still don't have date queries. *shrug*.
>
> That's why
Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
> On Fri, Dec 07 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Fine by me. I was just trying to clean up the file a bit, that's
>> all. The only downside I can think of is potential new users stumbling
>> on this and thinking we still don't have date queries. *shrug*.
>
> That's why
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07 2012, David Bremner wrote:
>> Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
>>> Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like "since:2009-01-1"
>>> or "until:2009-01-1" really now work? As far as I can tell they don't.
>>> Nor are they
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 12/07/2012 07:19 AM, David Bremner wrote:
>> For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It
>> would be reasonable to formulate a seperate TODO for supporting
>> things like date:2012-12-07
>
> Out of curiosity, how does t
On Fri, Dec 07 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Fine by me. I was just trying to clean up the file a bit, that's
> all. The only downside I can think of is potential new users stumbling
> on this and thinking we still don't have date queries. *shrug*.
That's why it should probably just be modified, ins
On Fri, Dec 07 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Fine by me. I was just trying to clean up the file a bit, that's
> all. The only downside I can think of is potential new users stumbling
> on this and thinking we still don't have date queries. *shrug*.
That's why it should probably just be modified, ins
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07 2012, David Bremner wrote:
>> Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
>>> Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like "since:2009-01-1"
>>> or "until:2009-01-1" really now work? As far as I can tell they don't.
>>> Nor are they
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 12/07/2012 07:19 AM, David Bremner wrote:
>> For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It
>> would be reasonable to formulate a seperate TODO for supporting
>> things like date:2012-12-07
>
> Out of curiosity, how does t
On 12/07/2012 07:19 AM, David Bremner wrote:
> For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It
> would be reasonable to formulate a seperate TODO for supporting
> things like date:2012-12-07
Out of curiosity, how does this syntax interact with timezones?
If i send a mail in
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> ---
>> devel/TODO |9 -
>> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
>> index eb757af..277a997 100644
>> --- a/devel/TODO
>> +++ b/devel/TODO
>> @@ -163,15
On 12/07/2012 07:19 AM, David Bremner wrote:
> For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It
> would be reasonable to formulate a seperate TODO for supporting
> things like date:2012-12-07
Out of curiosity, how does this syntax interact with timezones?
If i send a mail in
On Fri, Dec 07 2012, David Bremner wrote:
> Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
>> Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like "since:2009-01-1"
>> or "until:2009-01-1" really now work? As far as I can tell they don't.
>> Nor are they documented if they do.
>
> For specifying one-ended range
On Fri, Dec 07 2012, David Bremner wrote:
> Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
>> Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like "since:2009-01-1"
>> or "until:2009-01-1" really now work? As far as I can tell they don't.
>> Nor are they documented if they do.
>
> For specifying one-ended range
Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
> Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like "since:2009-01-1"
> or "until:2009-01-1" really now work? As far as I can tell they don't.
> Nor are they documented if they do.
For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It
would be
Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
> Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like "since:2009-01-1"
> or "until:2009-01-1" really now work? As far as I can tell they don't.
> Nor are they documented if they do.
For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It
would be
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> ---
>> devel/TODO |9 -
>> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
>> index eb757af..277a997 100644
>> --- a/devel/TODO
>> +++ b/devel/TODO
>> @@ -163,15 +
---
devel/TODO |9 -
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
index eb757af..277a997 100644
--- a/devel/TODO
+++ b/devel/TODO
@@ -163,15 +163,6 @@ vs. tag-when-all-files-flagged (* above)).
Add an interface to accept a "key" and a byte stream, rather than a
On Thu, Dec 06 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
> ---
> devel/TODO |9 -
> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
> index eb757af..277a997 100644
> --- a/devel/TODO
> +++ b/devel/TODO
> @@ -163,15 +163,6 @@ vs. tag-when-all-files-flagged (* above)).
> Add an
On Thu, Dec 06 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
> ---
> devel/TODO |9 -
> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
> index eb757af..277a997 100644
> --- a/devel/TODO
> +++ b/devel/TODO
> @@ -163,15 +163,6 @@ vs. tag-when-all-files-flagged (* above)).
> Add an
---
devel/TODO |9 -
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
index eb757af..277a997 100644
--- a/devel/TODO
+++ b/devel/TODO
@@ -163,15 +163,6 @@ vs. tag-when-all-files-flagged (* above)).
Add an interface to accept a "key" and a byte stream, rather than a
28 matches
Mail list logo