On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:57:26 +0200, Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian at SSpaeth.de> 
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:32:16 +0200, Florian Friesdorf <flo at chaoflow.net> 
> wrote:
> > I think it is confusing that it has a different versioning than notmuch
> > itself and that it would be more intuitive if the current bindings on
> > pypi [1] would have the same version as the current stable release of
> > notmuch.
> But that would require that the python bindings are actually updated to
> the current API of notmuch :-). Because they currently are not. E.g. the
> get_filename/get_filenames addition is still not included.

Is it sane to have python bindings that need updates or would a plain
wrapper of the notmuch script (that maybe needs less updates) be better?
I don't want to imply that this can be answered with yes/no, but more to
get a comparison of the two approaches.

Na?vely, I imagine there is a header file and the generation of the
python bindings happens rather automagic.

> > If they would also work with older releases of notmuch, that
> > could still be indicated, as it is done now.
> As far as for testing current implementations with older notmuch
> libraries, I welcome people to contribute patches to the documentation
> because I certainly will not test all combinations :-).
> To be honest, I don't even use the python bindings anymore, not that
> notmuch proper is able to give me all I need (especially file names).

Point taken, I don't use them yet, I might in the future.

Florian Friesdorf <flo at chaoflow.net>
  GPG FPR: 7A13 5EEE 1421 9FC2 108D  BAAF 38F8 99A3 0C45 F083
Jabber/XMPP: flo at chaoflow.net
IRC: chaoflow on freenode,ircnet,blafasel,OFTC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available

Reply via email to