Quoth Carl Worth on Jun 10 at 3:02 pm:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:11:03 -0400, Austin Clements
> wrote:
> > I've pushed the easy changes as atomic-new-v5, mostly to get them in
> > the record.
>
> Thanks. I'll look. These should all be ready to push with the
> discussion-pending stuff to come?
ow pushed.
Thanks again, Stewart.
-Carl
--
carl.d.worth at intel.com
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/at
Quoth Carl Worth on Jun 08 at 3:05 pm:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 22:51:10 -0400, Austin Clements
> wrote:
> > Rebased to current master (cb8418) as atomic-new-v4 (aka
> > for-review/atomic-new-v4).
>
> Hi Austin,
>
> Thanks so much for sending this series (and 4 times, even!).
>
> I *really*
cleanup.
-Carl
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20110610/2f8848e7/attachment.pgp>
ion/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20110610/32052fc5/attachment.pgp>
On 06/10/11 at 02:32P, Taylor Carpenter wrote:
> If a symlink points to . then there will be an infinite recursion. The
> included patch fixes that.
I did not realize this was needed in the count function as well. New
patch included that does both.
--- notmuch-new.c.orig 2011-06-10
If a symlink points to . then there will be an infinite recursion. The
included patch fixes that.
--- notmuch-new.c.orig 2011-06-10 00:03:09.0 -0500
+++ notmuch-new.c 2011-06-10 02:10:37.0 -0500
@@ -233,6 +233,8 @@
struct stat st;
notmuch_bool_t is_maildir,
This looks really interesting.
I haven't examined the code very closely, but I have some high level comments.
It seems that the code is simultaneously trying to do something very
general, but also hard-coding a lot of behaviors, and I think the
code's complexity suffers for it. What would this
Quoth Carl Worth on Jun 08 at 3:05 pm:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 22:51:10 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
Rebased to current master (cb8418) as atomic-new-v4 (aka
for-review/atomic-new-v4).
Hi Austin,
Thanks so much for sending this series (and 4 times, even!).
I *really*
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:11:03 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
Mm. It's now remove_filename (could be remove_message_filename?)
I like remove_filename just fine. Thanks.
I've pushed the easy changes as atomic-new-v5, mostly to get them in
the record.
Thanks. I'll look. These
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:30:06 -0400, da...@tethera.net wrote:
This code treats top posted copies essentially like signatures, except
that it doesn't sanity check their length, since neither do their
senders.
Hi David,
I'm sorry I dropped this patch so long ago!
I just picked it up, rebased it
On Tue, 24 May 2011 13:33:25 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 12:10:32 +1000, Stewart Smith stew...@flamingspork.com
wrote:
We're not properly concatenating the Received headers if we parse them
while requesting a header that isn't Received.
...
I'd prefer to
12 matches
Mail list logo
