Github?

Hello everyone, Thank you so much for creating Notmuch, I am coming from sup and I was looking for a more stable alternative and I think I found what I am looking for :) I was a bit disappointed that the project is not living (or at least mirrored) to Github, it would have made my search much

Github?

te: > Hello everyone, > > Thank you so much for creating Notmuch, I am coming from sup and I was > looking for a more stable alternative and I think I found what I am looking > for :) > > I was a bit disappointed that the project is not living (or at least > mirrored) to Githu

Github?

Hello everyone, Thank you so much for creating Notmuch, I am coming from sup and I was looking for a more stable alternative and I think I found what I am looking for :) I was a bit disappointed that the project is not living (or at least mirrored) to Github, it would have made my search much

Github?

te: > Hello everyone, > > Thank you so much for creating Notmuch, I am coming from sup and I was > looking for a more stable alternative and I think I found what I am looking > for :) > > I was a bit disappointed that the project is not living (or at least > mirrored) to Githu

Github?

e project is not living (or at least > mirrored) to Github, it would have made my search much easier. Any thoughts > on moving to Github? http://mid.gmane.org/87wqea7c37.fsf at nikula.org > I took the liberty of making the first move by > creating https://github.com/notmuch and sp

Github?

On Thu, 08 May 2014, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > I forgot to mention that I also enabled Travis-CI for notmuch, you can > access it here , there are 33 failed > tests, they are also failing on my own machine. Apparently the test suite does not handle missing de

Github?

> Great, thanks for your interest in notmuch! > >> I was a bit disappointed that the project is not living (or at least >> mirrored) to Github, it would have made my search much easier. Meaning that you start with the idea that everything should be in Github??? >> Any thought

Github?

Hi, On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:40:45AM +0100, Eric wrote: > On Thu, 08 May 2014 09:13:56 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Thu, 08 May 2014, Wael Nasreddine wrote: [...] > >> Any thoughts on moving to Github? > > http://mid.gmane.org/87wqea7c37.fsf at nikula.org > Exac

Github?

ng): - Revert my changes (except for the CI) - Set a cron job to update the mirror hourly for the Github user wanting to fork. - Remove the Issues, Pull Request and the Wiki - Add a "mirror of .." to the description on top of the page - Manually update the contrib/ bindings/ as they change

Github?

f (if it's acceptable with you, > otherwise I'll just remove everything): > > - Revert my changes (except for the CI) > - Set a cron job to update the mirror hourly for the Github user wanting > to fork. > - Remove the Issues, Pull Request and the Wiki > - Add a &quo

Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 07:54:38PM +, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > - Revert my changes (except for the CI) I'd revert all the changes and submit them upstream, so the GitHub repository is an exact mirror of http://git.notmuchmail.org/git/notmuch. A Travis-CI file is Travis-speci

Github?

ert my changes (except for the CI) > > - Set a cron job to update the mirror hourly for the Github user wanting > > to fork. > > - Remove the Issues, Pull Request and the Wiki > > - Add a "mirror of .." to the description on top of the page > > - Manuall

Github?

Wael M. Nasreddine wrote: > Can you guys at least consider splitting contrib/ and bindings/ into > their own repo? It don't think that's such a good idea. One of the reasons Notmuch and other projects like the Linux kernel have everything under one tree is that changes in the API can be done acros

Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:30:19PM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:14:51PM -0700, Wael M. Nasreddine wrote: > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Wael Nasreddine > > wrote: [...] > > Can you guys at least consider splitting contrib/ and bindings/ into their > > own repo? It wil

Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:21:00PM +0200, guyzmo wrote: > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:30:19PM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote: > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:14:51PM -0700, Wael M. Nasreddine wrote: > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Wael Nasreddine > > > wrote: > [...] > > > Can you guys at least consi

Github?

wise I'll just remove everything): > > - Revert my changes (except for the CI) > - Set a cron job to update the mirror hourly for the Github user wanting to > fork. > - Remove the Issues, Pull Request and the Wiki > - Add a "mirror of .." to the description on top of the page

Github?

Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in owning and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not done anything with the history I only added one commit which will never conflict with upstream unless you add a .Travis.yml file :) On Thursday, May 8, 2014 3

Github?

x27;s acceptable with you, >> otherwise I'll just remove everything): >> >> - Revert my changes (except for the CI) >> - Set a cron job to update the mirror hourly for the Github user wanting to >> fork. >> - Remove the Issues, Pull Request and the Wiki >

Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:18:23PM +, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in owning > and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not done > anything with the history I only added one commit which will never confli

Github?

I understand. Maybe we should convert the current Github to a real mirror, mirroring all the branches and tags as is and a) add .Travis.yml upstream or b) maintain a separate fork (maybe under my own profile) for Travis integration Would you be willing to add Travis.yml upstream? In any case

Github?

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:13:51AM +, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > I understand. Maybe we should convert the current Github to a real mirror, > mirroring all the branches and tags as is and a) add .Travis.yml upstream > or b) maintain a separate fork (maybe under my own profile) f

Github?

Wael Nasreddine wrote: > Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in > owning and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not > done anything with the history I only added one commit which will > never conflict with upstream unless you add a .Tra

Github?

W. Trevor King wrote: > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:18:23PM +, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > > Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in owning > > and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not done > > anything with the history I only a

Github?

Wael Nasreddine wrote: > Would you be willing to add Travis.yml upstream? I would. After all we have packaging stuff which are not strictly part of notmuch. -- Felipe Contreras

Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:18:23PM +, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > > > Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in > owning > > > and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not done > > > anything with the history I only added

Github?

guyzmo wrote: > do you know about git submodules? It's actually there to be able to > track changes on remote repositories that are closely related, > while keeping a sane separation. Git sumobules are more like a hack than an integral part of Git. I personally avoid them like the plague. So

Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:43:01PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > W. Trevor King wrote: > > I don't think merge conflicts are the problem here. If the GitHub > > mirror claims to be a mirror but adds an additional commit B? > > That wouldn't be a problem if HEAD

Github?

Wael Nasreddine wrote: > Actually you can't have the .Travis.yml file in a separate branch, > Travis require it present in the context that it is testing (commits > to all branches) Yes, so? The 'travis-ci' branch can merge from upstream, and then upstream would be tested. -- Felipe Contreras

Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:01:56PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > Agreed. The only problem I'd have is that you'd want to say that the > GitHub repo was a mirror, since the primary repo would still be > git://notmuchmail.org/git/notmuch. If it's a mirror, I think it >

Github?

W. Trevor King wrote: > Agreed. The only problem I'd have is that you'd want to say that the > GitHub repo was a mirror, since the primary repo would still be > git://notmuchmail.org/git/notmuch. If it's a mirror, I think it > should mirror all refs on the main repo

Github?

Hi, Wael Nasreddine writes: > I was a bit disappointed that the project is not living (or at least > mirrored) to Github, it would have made my search much easier. How GitHub would help with this? I believe that most of search engines reach Notmuch home page. GitHub is not the center

Github?

Amadeusz ?o?nowski wrote: > The same goes for Travis. There's already a build bot. Why bother > with Travis? I've never seen any buildbot results. TravisCI's interface is just simple and easy. And all it requires is one file. -- Felipe Contreras

Github?

Felipe Contreras writes: > Amadeusz ?o?nowski wrote: >> The same goes for Travis. There's already a build bot. Why bother >> with Travis? > > I've never seen any buildbot results. TravisCI's interface is just > simple and easy. And all it requires is one file. > Not to take a position on travis

Github?

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Bremner wrote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> Amadeusz ?o?nowski wrote: >>> The same goes for Travis. There's already a build bot. Why bother >>> with Travis? >> >> I've never seen any buildbot results. TravisCI's interface is just >> simple and easy. And a

Github?

On Sat, May 10 2014, "Wael M. Nasreddine" wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Bremner wrote: >> Felipe Contreras writes: >> >>> Amadeusz ?o?nowski wrote: The same goes for Travis. There's already a build bot. Why bother with Travis? >>> >>> I've never seen any buildbot res

Github?

Tomi Ollila wrote: > BTW: does .travis.yml support comment lines ? It's YAML. So, yes. -- Felipe Contreras

github

On Sun, Apr 27 2014, Jani Nikula wrote: > To be honest, I am slightly concerned by the popularity of > github. Despite being a hosting site primarily for open source, it *is* > a proprietary platform. Source code hosting is plain git, but AFAIK all > the rest (review process, issue t

github

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27 2014, Jani Nikula wrote: >> To be honest, I am slightly concerned by the popularity of >> github. Despite being a hosting site primarily for open source, it *is* >> a proprietary platform. Source

github

On Mon, May 12 2014, Felipe Contreras wrote: > How would our development cycle be controlled by GitHub? > > The whole point of a distributed VCS is that there isn't a single > central repository you rely on. If this is true then why are we even talking about github? jamie. --

github

Jameson Graef Rollins writes: > On Mon, May 12 2014, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> How would our development cycle be controlled by GitHub? >> >> The whole point of a distributed VCS is that there isn't a single >> central repository you rely on. > > If thi

github

Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > On Mon, May 12 2014, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > How would our development cycle be controlled by GitHub? > > > > The whole point of a distributed VCS is that there isn't a single > > central repository you rely on. > > If thi

github mirror

also quite common to use a social website such as github or getsatisfaction to interface with users. In my experience, github dramatically increases the number of contributions from users, in the form of what github calls "pull requests" (if you're a git user but not a github user, the t

Re: Github?

e project is not living (or at least > mirrored) to Github, it would have made my search much easier. Any thoughts > on moving to Github? http://mid.gmane.org/87wqea7c37@nikula.org > I took the liberty of making the first move by > creating https://github.com/notmuch and splitting

Re: Github?

On Thu, 08 May 2014, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > I forgot to mention that I also enabled Travis-CI for notmuch, you can > access it here , there are 33 failed > tests, they are also failing on my own machine. Apparently the test suite does not handle missing de

Re: Github?

> Great, thanks for your interest in notmuch! > >> I was a bit disappointed that the project is not living (or at least >> mirrored) to Github, it would have made my search much easier. Meaning that you start with the idea that everything should be in Github??? >> Any thought

Re: Github?

Hi, On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:40:45AM +0100, Eric wrote: > On Thu, 08 May 2014 09:13:56 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Thu, 08 May 2014, Wael Nasreddine wrote: [...] > >> Any thoughts on moving to Github? > > http://mid.gmane.org/87wqea7c37@nikula.org > Exactly

Re: Github?

ng): - Revert my changes (except for the CI) - Set a cron job to update the mirror hourly for the Github user wanting to fork. - Remove the Issues, Pull Request and the Wiki - Add a "mirror of .." to the description on top of the page - Manually update the contrib/ bindings/ as they change

Re: Github?

f (if it's acceptable with you, > otherwise I'll just remove everything): > > - Revert my changes (except for the CI) > - Set a cron job to update the mirror hourly for the Github user wanting > to fork. > - Remove the Issues, Pull Request and the Wiki > - Add a &quo

Re: Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 07:54:38PM +, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > - Revert my changes (except for the CI) I'd revert all the changes and submit them upstream, so the GitHub repository is an exact mirror of http://git.notmuchmail.org/git/notmuch. A Travis-CI file is Travis-speci

Re: Github?

ert my changes (except for the CI) > > - Set a cron job to update the mirror hourly for the Github user wanting > > to fork. > > - Remove the Issues, Pull Request and the Wiki > > - Add a "mirror of .." to the description on top of the page > > - Manuall

Re: Github?

Wael M. Nasreddine wrote: > Can you guys at least consider splitting contrib/ and bindings/ into > their own repo? It don't think that's such a good idea. One of the reasons Notmuch and other projects like the Linux kernel have everything under one tree is that changes in the API can be done acros

Re: Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:30:19PM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:14:51PM -0700, Wael M. Nasreddine wrote: > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Wael Nasreddine > > wrote: [...] > > Can you guys at least consider splitting contrib/ and bindings/ into their > > own repo? It wil

Re: Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:21:00PM +0200, guyzmo wrote: > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:30:19PM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote: > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:14:51PM -0700, Wael M. Nasreddine wrote: > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Wael Nasreddine > > > wrote: > [...] > > > Can you guys at least consi

Re: Github?

wise I'll just remove everything): > > - Revert my changes (except for the CI) > - Set a cron job to update the mirror hourly for the Github user wanting to > fork. > - Remove the Issues, Pull Request and the Wiki > - Add a "mirror of .." to the description on top of the page

Re: Github?

Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in owning and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not done anything with the history I only added one commit which will never conflict with upstream unless you add a .Travis.yml file :) On Thursday, May 8, 2014 3

Re: Github?

x27;s acceptable with you, >> otherwise I'll just remove everything): >> >> - Revert my changes (except for the CI) >> - Set a cron job to update the mirror hourly for the Github user wanting to >> fork. >> - Remove the Issues, Pull Request and the Wiki >

Re: Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:18:23PM +, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in owning > and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not done > anything with the history I only added one commit which will never confli

Re: Github?

I understand. Maybe we should convert the current Github to a real mirror, mirroring all the branches and tags as is and a) add .Travis.yml upstream or b) maintain a separate fork (maybe under my own profile) for Travis integration Would you be willing to add Travis.yml upstream? In any case

Re: Github?

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:13:51AM +, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > I understand. Maybe we should convert the current Github to a real mirror, > mirroring all the branches and tags as is and a) add .Travis.yml upstream > or b) maintain a separate fork (maybe under my own profile) f

Re: Github?

Wael Nasreddine wrote: > Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in > owning and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not > done anything with the history I only added one commit which will > never conflict with upstream unless you add a .Tra

Re: Github?

W. Trevor King wrote: > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:18:23PM +, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > > Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in owning > > and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not done > > anything with the history I only a

Re: Github?

Wael Nasreddine wrote: > Would you be willing to add Travis.yml upstream? I would. After all we have packaging stuff which are not strictly part of notmuch. -- Felipe Contreras ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mai

Re: Github?

Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:18:23PM +, Wael Nasreddine wrote: > > > Well like I said in my first email, if you guys are interested in > owning > > > and maintaining the GitHub repo it is yours, besides I have not done > > > anything with the history I only added one comm

Re: Github?

guyzmo wrote: > do you know about git submodules? It's actually there to be able to > track changes on remote repositories that are closely related, > while keeping a sane separation. Git sumobules are more like a hack than an integral part of Git. I personally avoid them like the plague. So

Re: Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:43:01PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > W. Trevor King wrote: > > I don't think merge conflicts are the problem here. If the GitHub > > mirror claims to be a mirror but adds an additional commit B… > > That wouldn't be a problem if HEAD

Re: Github?

Wael Nasreddine wrote: > Actually you can't have the .Travis.yml file in a separate branch, > Travis require it present in the context that it is testing (commits > to all branches) Yes, so? The 'travis-ci' branch can merge from upstream, and then upstream would be tested. -- Felipe Contreras __

Re: Github?

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:01:56PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > Agreed. The only problem I'd have is that you'd want to say that the > GitHub repo was a mirror, since the primary repo would still be > git://notmuchmail.org/git/notmuch. If it's a mirror, I think it >

Re: Github?

W. Trevor King wrote: > Agreed. The only problem I'd have is that you'd want to say that the > GitHub repo was a mirror, since the primary repo would still be > git://notmuchmail.org/git/notmuch. If it's a mirror, I think it > should mirror all refs on the main repo

Re: Github?

Hi, Wael Nasreddine writes: > I was a bit disappointed that the project is not living (or at least > mirrored) to Github, it would have made my search much easier. How GitHub would help with this? I believe that most of search engines reach Notmuch home page. GitHub is not the center

Re: Github?

Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: > The same goes for Travis. There's already a build bot. Why bother > with Travis? I've never seen any buildbot results. TravisCI's interface is just simple and easy. And all it requires is one file. -- Felipe Contreras ___ n

Re: Github?

Felipe Contreras writes: > Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: >> The same goes for Travis. There's already a build bot. Why bother >> with Travis? > > I've never seen any buildbot results. TravisCI's interface is just > simple and easy. And all it requires is one file. > Not to take a position on travis

Re: Github?

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Bremner wrote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: >>> The same goes for Travis. There's already a build bot. Why bother >>> with Travis? >> >> I've never seen any buildbot results. TravisCI's interface is just >> simple and easy. And a

Re: Github?

On Sat, May 10 2014, "Wael M. Nasreddine" wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Bremner wrote: >> Felipe Contreras writes: >> >>> Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: The same goes for Travis. There's already a build bot. Why bother with Travis? >>> >>> I've never seen any buildbot res

Re: Github?

Tomi Ollila wrote: > BTW: does .travis.yml support comment lines ? It's YAML. So, yes. -- Felipe Contreras ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

Re: github

On Sun, Apr 27 2014, Jani Nikula wrote: > To be honest, I am slightly concerned by the popularity of > github. Despite being a hosting site primarily for open source, it *is* > a proprietary platform. Source code hosting is plain git, but AFAIK all > the rest (review process, issue t

Re: github

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27 2014, Jani Nikula wrote: >> To be honest, I am slightly concerned by the popularity of >> github. Despite being a hosting site primarily for open source, it *is* >> a proprietary platform. Source

Re: github

On Mon, May 12 2014, Felipe Contreras wrote: > How would our development cycle be controlled by GitHub? > > The whole point of a distributed VCS is that there isn't a single > central repository you rely on. If this is true then why are we even talking about github? jamie.

Re: github

Jameson Graef Rollins writes: > On Mon, May 12 2014, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> How would our development cycle be controlled by GitHub? >> >> The whole point of a distributed VCS is that there isn't a single >> central repository you rely on. > > If thi

Re: github

Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > On Mon, May 12 2014, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > How would our development cycle be controlled by GitHub? > > > > The whole point of a distributed VCS is that there isn't a single > > central repository you rely on. > > If thi

github mirror

also quite common to use a social website such as github or getsatisfaction to interface with users. In my experience, github dramatically increases the number of contributions from users, in the form of what github calls "pull requests" (if you're a git user but not a github user, the t

github mirror

h [2] http://nmbug.tethera.net/status/ [3] http://notmuchmail.org/nmbug/ > While I appreciate that you probably use notmuch as your work flow > manager, it is also quite common to use a social website such as github > or getsatisfaction to interface with users. In my experience, github > dr

github mirror

Sam Halliday writes: > Dear NotMuch, > > But in any case, my RFE/question was this: how hard would it be to have > an optional mode of behaviour where tags are stored in the message > itself, so that syncing with an IMAP server (e.g. via offlineimap) > would make the tags available on all devices

github mirror

David Mazieres writes: > Sam Halliday writes: >> But in any case, my RFE/question was this: how hard would it be to have >> an optional mode of behaviour where tags are stored in the message >> itself, so that syncing with an IMAP server (e.g. via offlineimap) >> would make the tags available on

github mirror

Quoth Sam Halliday on Apr 27 at 12:09 pm: > But in any case, my RFE/question was this: how hard would it be to have > an optional mode of behaviour where tags are stored in the message > itself, so that syncing with an IMAP server (e.g. via offlineimap) > would make the tags available on all device

github mirror

Austin Clements writes: > As for storing this information directly in messages, in general, the > notmuch community is opposed to modifying messages. This causes many > problems, and immutable messages are more robust and simplify so many > things. IMAP assumes messages are immutable. Maildir

github mirror

Austin Clements writes: > Quoth Sam Halliday on Apr 27 at 12:09 pm: >> But in any case, my RFE/question was this: how hard would it be to have >> an optional mode of behaviour where tags are stored in the message >> itself, so that syncing with an IMAP server (e.g. via offlineimap) >> would make th

github mirror

Excerpts from David Mazieres's message of 2014-04-28 07:29:06 +0200: > Austin Clements writes: > > > As for storing this information directly in messages, in general, the > > notmuch community is opposed to modifying messages. This causes many > > problems, and immutable messages are more robust

github mirror

Gaute Hope writes: >> Really what you want is an imap server built on top of the notmuch >> library. That way you could use notmuch from your desktop and then use >> imap from your phone, and everything would stay perfectly in sync. >> Implementing such a server wouldn't be that hard, but it wou

github mirror

I have now tried mu4e and I don't like it nearly as much as notmuch, so I'm sticking with this and aim to help out where notmuch falls short on tag syncing between machines :-) David Mazieres writes: > the complexity of altering files is not worth it. I agree. Immutability is a great thing. I l

github mirror

Sam Halliday writes: > David Mazieres writes: >> The problem is that different imap servers store tags in different >> ways. Since notmuch does not use imap, it would be hard for notmuch to >> synchronize the tags, other than the standard ones (for which notmuch >> already has support). >> >> O

Re: github mirror

h [2] http://nmbug.tethera.net/status/ [3] http://notmuchmail.org/nmbug/ > While I appreciate that you probably use notmuch as your work flow > manager, it is also quite common to use a social website such as github > or getsatisfaction to interface with users. In my experience, github > dr

Re: github mirror

Sam Halliday writes: > Dear NotMuch, > > But in any case, my RFE/question was this: how hard would it be to have > an optional mode of behaviour where tags are stored in the message > itself, so that syncing with an IMAP server (e.g. via offlineimap) > would make the tags available on all devices

Re: github mirror

David Mazieres writes: > Sam Halliday writes: >> But in any case, my RFE/question was this: how hard would it be to have >> an optional mode of behaviour where tags are stored in the message >> itself, so that syncing with an IMAP server (e.g. via offlineimap) >> would make the tags available on

Re: github mirror

Quoth Sam Halliday on Apr 27 at 12:09 pm: > But in any case, my RFE/question was this: how hard would it be to have > an optional mode of behaviour where tags are stored in the message > itself, so that syncing with an IMAP server (e.g. via offlineimap) > would make the tags available on all device

Re: github mirror

Austin Clements writes: > As for storing this information directly in messages, in general, the > notmuch community is opposed to modifying messages. This causes many > problems, and immutable messages are more robust and simplify so many > things. IMAP assumes messages are immutable. Maildir

Re: github mirror

Austin Clements writes: > Quoth Sam Halliday on Apr 27 at 12:09 pm: >> But in any case, my RFE/question was this: how hard would it be to have >> an optional mode of behaviour where tags are stored in the message >> itself, so that syncing with an IMAP server (e.g. via offlineimap) >> would make th

Re: github mirror

Excerpts from David Mazieres's message of 2014-04-28 07:29:06 +0200: > Austin Clements writes: > > > As for storing this information directly in messages, in general, the > > notmuch community is opposed to modifying messages. This causes many > > problems, and immutable messages are more robust

Re: github mirror

Gaute Hope writes: >> Really what you want is an imap server built on top of the notmuch >> library. That way you could use notmuch from your desktop and then use >> imap from your phone, and everything would stay perfectly in sync. >> Implementing such a server wouldn't be that hard, but it wou

Re: github mirror

I have now tried mu4e and I don't like it nearly as much as notmuch, so I'm sticking with this and aim to help out where notmuch falls short on tag syncing between machines :-) David Mazieres writes: > the complexity of altering files is not worth it. I agree. Immutability is a great thing. I l

Re: github mirror

Sam Halliday writes: > David Mazieres writes: >> The problem is that different imap servers store tags in different >> ways. Since notmuch does not use imap, it would be hard for notmuch to >> synchronize the tags, other than the standard ones (for which notmuch >> already has support). >> >> O

  1   2   >