* On 08 Nov 2011, Gary Johnson wrote: > > I don't know--I've been out of the development loop for a while. > I've used conditionals in my status_format for a long time, at least > as far back as 1.4.2.2i. I think the %X sequence may be fairly > recent, though, introduced in 1.5.something. I couldn't find
Introduced here: changeset: 4412:5a347f860ec3 branch: HEAD user: David Champion <[email protected]> date: Tue Oct 04 06:05:39 2005 +0000 summary: Attachment counting for index display (patch-1.5.11.dgc.attach.6). shell$ hg log -r 5a347f860ec3 --template='{latesttag}\n' mutt-1-5-11-rel That tells what was the most recent tag at the time of the revision in which %X was committed, so we conclude that it was first released in 1.5.12. shell$ hg log --template='{latesttag} {date|isodate}\n' -r mutt-1-5-12-rel -r mutt-1-4-2-3-rel -r mutt-1-4-rel mutt-1-5-12-rel 2006-07-14 18:20 +0000 mutt-1-4-2-3-rel 2007-05-26 18:00 -0700 mutt-1-4-rel 2002-05-29 09:31 +0000 Note that 1.4.2.3 is newer than 1.5.12. It's a "stable" branch, so it contains security/bugfix updates only, no feature backports. I would be genuinely surprised if someone measured reliability across many users and found that 1.5.21 is any less stable than 1.4.2.3. I run single mutt 1.5.21 processes literally for months at a stretch without exiting -- and I have a feature patch queue about 20 deep on top of HEAD. Mutt is far more stable (and performant, even with attachment counting) than any web browser I use. This is why nobody should be using 1.4, and why mutt should abandon the even/odd stable/development dichotomy. ;) -- David Champion • [email protected] • IT Services • University of Chicago
