On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:20:48 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth at cworth.org> wrote: > Thanks for this patch, James! It's especially nice to have the fix come > in with additions to the test suite as well.
Thanks for including a test suite I could add to! > I did split up the commit so the addition to the test suite happens > first. That way it's easy to test the test itself, (verifying that it > fails before the fix, and then passes after the fix). Your choice. I prefer putting them in the same commit to be more self-documenting, and then using the capabilities of my VCS to verify the change if i desire. > I also added a few documentation and other cleanups as follow-on > commits. Hopefully, they don't change the logic at all, but make things > easier to understand. > > So that's all pushed. Great, thanks. > Then, I started implementing support for retroactively storing > thread_ids for non-existing messages references in already-existing > messages. It took me perhaps too long that a change like that, (while > useful), is too invasive for the current 0.2 release, and not essential > for this particular feature. This would fix up threads for all existing messages? Probably a good thing to have, but not that important to me. In my case I can always open the bug in my browser if I want to see the full conversation. > So I've postponed that part at least. I hope to make a database-schema > upgrade a key part of a release in a couple of cycles, (for this > feature and for "list:" and "folder:"). Cool, I look forward to it. Thanks, James