Re: [Nmh-workers] Third release candidate for 1.7.1 is now available

Hi David, > > Oh, I guess that's because `scan -v' does not modify `context', > > e.g.: > > Right. Neither does -help. > > Ken, would it be a bad idea to call context_save() in > nmh_version_changed() if the Version context is replaced? That's probably the same as asking if no code fiddles with

Re: [Nmh-workers] Third release candidate for 1.7.1 is now available

Ralph wrote: > That's probably the same as asking if no code fiddles with context in > temporary ways knowing *it's* not going to save it later? In this case, no code fiddles with context within the same program before nmh_version_changed() is called, because it's only called at the beginning. C

Re: [Nmh-workers] Third release candidate for 1.7.1 is now available

David Levine writes: >Norm wrote: > >> show no longer accepts -nopref > >mhshow accepts -[no]pref. show never did. Maybe it should? > >These arg parsing error messages are a bit odd: > >$ show -pref >show: missing argument to -pref > >$ show -pref text/plain >mhl: -pref unknown mhshow -nopr 170

Re: [Nmh-workers] Third release candidate for 1.7.1 is now available

>> > I don't remember that glitch in the past, but it is so minor that I might >> > well have not noticed or ignored it. >> > [...] >> >> Oh, I guess that's because `scan -v' does not modify `context', e.g.: > >Right. Neither does -help. > >Ken, would it be a bad idea to call context_save() in nmh

Re: [Nmh-workers] Third release candidate for 1.7.1 is now available

ken wrote: > >> > I don't remember that glitch in the past, but it is so minor that I > >> > might > >> > well have not noticed or ignored it. > >> > [...] > >> > >> Oh, I guess that's because `scan -v' does not modify `context', e.g.: > > > >Right. Neither does -help. > > > >Ken, would

Re: [Nmh-workers] Third release candidate for 1.7.1 is now available

>> Ken, would it be a bad idea to call context_save() in >> nmh_version_changed() if the Version context is replaced? > >That's probably the same as asking if no code fiddles with context in >temporary ways knowing *it's* not going to save it later? Generally when the context is going to be fiddle

Re: [Nmh-workers] Third release candidate for 1.7.1 is now available

Paul F wrote: > agreed. doesn't seem like a release blocker to me. +1 David -- Nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: [Nmh-workers] Third release candidate for 1.7.1 is now available

>Paul F wrote: > >> agreed. doesn't seem like a release blocker to me. > >+1 Alright, so ... give it a week and if nothing crops up, we'll go for 1.7.1 final? --Ken -- Nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers