>My thought was that it got invoked if .mh_profile didn't have the >"mh-version" line. Given your comment about this being spread out among >lots of files, perhaps we could simplify to a uniform process: all files >are versioned, and all generate the same message on being read if >there's been a relevant version change — something like this:
Weeeelll ... that's not a bad idea, actually. It might be kind of how we do the NEWS file now. Although that tends to show up more often that I want sometimes. I'm not completely sure how that works for format files; we'd need to think about that. I guess a comment in the begining would work. >For efficiency the /etc/nmh files could be versioned too, and the >version check only triggered when their version is bumped. That way, if >release 1.7 did nothing to change /etc/nmh/mhl.reply, that would stay at >version 1.6 and the out-of-date warning wouldn't be triggered if the >user's mhl.reply was also at 1.6. Does require a partial parse of the >/etc files too, which could be annoying; perhaps the last-changed >version could be in the code instead. That might be worth doing as well. >Hm. Do you have a prioritised list of jobs you'd most like done? Well, here's my "wish list" for 1.8: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2019-05/msg00000.html --Ken -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
