On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:22:46 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:04 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:05:00 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > > > I do not think we need a test for this fix. What we need are tests for
> > > > FCC functionality when
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:58:23 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> Well, I should have prepared a better commit message from the
> beginning. Then no pushing might have been needed :)
That, or a test case, (which would have clued me in to read the correct
interpretation of the original commit messag
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:58:23 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> Well, I should have prepared a better commit message from the
> beginning. Then no pushing might have been needed :)
That, or a test case, (which would have clued me in to read the correct
interpretation of the original commit message
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:22:46 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:04 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:05:00 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > > > I do not think we need a test for this fix. What we need are tests for
> > > > FCC functionality when notmuch-
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:04 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:05:00 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > > I do not think we need a test for this fix. What we need are tests for
> > > FCC functionality when notmuch-fcc-dirs is a list.
> >
> > Yes!
I've written these now. And th
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:04 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:05:00 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > > I do not think we need a test for this fix. What we need are tests for
> > > FCC functionality when notmuch-fcc-dirs is a list.
> >
> > Yes!
I've written these now. And the
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:05:00 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:49:57 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, it says that changes are in notmuch 0.5. So "old" and "previous"
> > refer to pre-0.5 (i.e. 0.4) and "new" refers to 0.5.
>
>
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:04 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> "notmuch was incorecctly detecting this as the ..." is not right.
Thanks. I was sure my commit message wasn't right yet. That was my
point---I didn't know what the right message would be! ;-)
> It is a wrong-type-argument lisp error
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:04 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> "notmuch was incorecctly detecting this as the ..." is not right.
Thanks. I was sure my commit message wasn't right yet. That was my
point---I didn't know what the right message would be! ;-)
> It is a wrong-type-argument lisp error (
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:05:00 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:49:57 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
> wrote:
> > Well, it says that changes are in notmuch 0.5. So "old" and "previous"
> > refer to pre-0.5 (i.e. 0.4) and "new" refers to 0.5.
>
> Sure, bu
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:49:57 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> Well, it says that changes are in notmuch 0.5. So "old" and "previous"
> refer to pre-0.5 (i.e. 0.4) and "new" refers to 0.5.
Sure, but I happen to ahve already forgotten the details of how the
variable could be configured in 0.4 and
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:49:57 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> Well, it says that changes are in notmuch 0.5. So "old" and "previous"
> refer to pre-0.5 (i.e. 0.4) and "new" refers to 0.5.
Sure, but I happen to ahve already forgotten the details of how the
variable could be configured in 0.4 and
Hi Carl.
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 22:10:07 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:51:49 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins finestructure.net> wrote:
> Hi Jamie,
>
> I've pushed the next few patches up to this point, (with only one
> functional change---I fixed a new test case to correctly use
>
Hi Carl.
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 22:10:07 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:51:49 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
> wrote:
> Hi Jamie,
>
> I've pushed the next few patches up to this point, (with only one
> functional change---I fixed a new test case to correctly use
> notmuch_search_
On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:51:49 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
Hi Jamie,
I've pushed the next few patches up to this point, (with only one
functional change---I fixed a new test case to correctly use
notmuch_search_sanitize to avoid spurious failures unmatching thread ID
values).
This patch,
On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:51:49 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
Hi Jamie,
I've pushed the next few patches up to this point, (with only one
functional change---I fixed a new test case to correctly use
notmuch_search_sanitize to avoid spurious failures unmatching thread ID
values).
This patch, h
From: Dmitry Kurochkin
In notmuch 0.5 notmuch-fcc-dirs style changed. The previous code
did not correctly identify an old configuration and, as a
consequence, broke new configurations.
The fix was extracted from a bigger patch series by David
Edmondson id:"1290682750-30283-2-git-send-email-...@
From: Dmitry Kurochkin
In notmuch 0.5 notmuch-fcc-dirs style changed. The previous code
did not correctly identify an old configuration and, as a
consequence, broke new configurations.
The fix was extracted from a bigger patch series by David
Edmondson id:"1290682750-30283-2-git-send-email-dme
18 matches
Mail list logo
