[2010-12-14 12:29] Oliver Kiddle <[email protected]> > I've had a look through for any pending patches since the last release. > Mostly, this is Meillo's recent patches. Does anyone know of any further > patches that we might apply or rework.
> undo of install-mh > Nobody would ever run an uninstall-mh script and I doubt that the > person raising the bug was a user looking for it. Most software > creates a pile of dot files without even asking these days. If > any fix is necessary, I'd vote for a tiny bit more detail in the > man page - less than the original patch included. I agree that the need for a uninstall-mh is low and I had been convinced that we don't need or even want a program to do the job. However, I haven't known exactly what install-mh does until I read through its code. As I think it is worthwhile to know what files do get installed I vote for extending the man page in this respect. The mention of `mhpath +` for finding the mail storage had been a very useful hint for me, thus it may be for others. Remind that users who run mh-install usually are not very familiar with nmh yet. > Any objections if I apply those? Doesn't git have some ways to preserve > details of the actual author of a patch? Or better still, could someone > give Meillo permissions on the git repository. I don't need permissions now as I will be offline from Friday on (will write a mail related to that soon), also I think I don't want permissions currently. I feel better if you apply patches I propose. But I do miss my name on stuff I had been involved in. This surely affects anyone who contributes in any way. Adding names to commit messages or the changelog is sufficient IMO. > If I understand correctly, the MIME handling improvments are not yet > finished? Rather: It's not yet decided what is considered right for nmh. meillo _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
