On Nov 5, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Brice Figureau wrote: > > On 05/11/09 21:19, Luke Kanies wrote: >> >> On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Markus Roberts wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Note: I pushed 2 branches, one for 0.25.x and one for master because >>> it >>> touches code that diverged between 0.25.x and master, but the fix is >>> the >>> same (except master has some tests) >>> >>> So call me an old fuddy, but a lot of these sorts of problems don't >>> happen when you just apply patches rather than merging branches. >> >> How would one actually do that, without using mutt and mboxes? >> >> AFAICT, none of the "just apply patches" solutions allow you to use >> mail clients created since 1990. >> >> I've considered it in the past, but it never seemed feasible without >> requiring everyone to revert two decades. > > I think Evolution could work quite fine, because it doesn't wrap > patches. If only Evolution was working on OSX. > And actually mutt is pretty powerful :-)
I agree mutt is powerful, I just don't want to use it. And really, it's more the server-side technology: You have to use local mboxes instead of remote IMAP mailboxes. What we really need is an imap- based patch management solution. But I don't think IMAP has much in the way of ordering, so I don't know if that would even suffice. -- Think twice before you speak, and then you may be able to say something more insulting than if you spoke right out at once. -- Evan Esar --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
