On 2017-07-18 07:42, David Bremner wrote:
> Two things you might find useful to know:
>
> - you can resume editing a previous draft with 'e'
> - autosaving does not create drafts
>
> If it really bugs you, you could override the binding C-x C-s in
> notmuch-show mode.
I think that's the
In [1], Mark gave a test that was behaving strangly. This turns out to
be specific to reindexing. I suppose one could argue that picking the
lexicographically last file name is a defensible choice, but it's
almost as easy to take the first, which seems more intuitive. So mark
the current situation
This is still a bit stopgap to be only choosing one set of headers,
but this seems like a more defensible set of headers to choose.
---
lib/message.cc | 4 +++-
test/T670-duplicate-mid.sh | 1 -
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/message.cc b/lib/message
The original intent of this test was to verify that notmuch show was
not crashing when the first file (where headers are being read from)
was deleted. Run the output through some sanitization so that as we
add and delete copies we don't have to update this test.
---
test/T670-duplicate-mid.sh | 11
In [1] Mark showed that the the current code (d7a49e81) is not
consistent in it's handling of subjects of messages with duplicate
message-ids (or in notmuch-speak, of messages with multiple files).
notmuch-search uses indexing order and explicitedly preserves the
first. notmuch-show (apparently) us
The existing test for notmuch search had the first in filename order
the same as the first indexed, which made it harder to understand what
the underlying behaviour is. Add a file with a lexicographically
smaller name, but later index time to clarify this.
---
test/T670-duplicate-mid.sh | 10 +
---
Hi
Many thanks to bremner for the parent patch. I thought it might be
worth adding a search test after the broken show test demonstrating
the distinction between show and search. When I added it I found it
actually gives the other file as the answer!
This applies on top of the parent patch.
When inserting a text/plain part during reply generation, add a hook
that allows the user to improve the display of the part.
As an example, the function `notmuch-wash-tidy-citations' might be
called.
---
emacs/notmuch-mua.el | 9 -
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --g
Improved citation washing.
- More aggressive citation washing.
- Allow washing during text/plain reply generation.
--
I acknowledge that some of the citation washing can seem aggressive at
times, but it does make my life more pleasant (no more shouting at the
screen "what was he thinking!" when
Update the expected output of the tests to conform with the new
citation tidying.
---
.../notmuch-show-elide-non-matching-messages-off | 2 ++
.../notmuch-show-elide-non-matching-messages-on| 2 ++
.../notmuch-show-indent-thread-content-off
Improve the citation tidying by being more aggressive about the
changes made:
- collapse all citation leaders to the canonical form (stripping out
intervening spaces, for example),
- ensure that a blank line exists before and after every block of
cited text.
---
emacs/notmuch-wash.el | 42
Citation tidying might change the length of some lines, making it more
appropriate to perform line wrapping after citation tidying rather
than before.
---
emacs/notmuch-show.el | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/emacs/notmuch-show.el b/emacs/notmuch-show.el
i
In [1] Mark showed that the the current code (d7a49e81) is not
consistent in it's handling of subjects of messages with duplicate
message-ids (or in notmuch-speak, of messages with multiple files).
notmuch-search uses indexing order and explicitedly preserves the
first. notmuch-show (apparently) us
This avoids the later tests seeing different versions of the database
depending on whether dtach is available.
---
test/T170-sexp.sh | 11 +--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/T170-sexp.sh b/test/T170-sexp.sh
index 40e5e21d..db142e49 100755
--- a/test/T170
Hi
A concern for notmuch is some form of attack via someone sending a
message with a duplicate message id. I think I have seen it asserted
that it is not so much of a problem as the first message received by
notmuch will have priority.
However, I believe that this is not the case. The script bel
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, David Bremner wrote:
> The advantage of having a target as opposed to running cppcheck by
> hand
>
> - reuse list of source files
> - output errors in a format parsable, e.g. by emacs
> - returns exit code 1 on any error, for possibly use in other
> targets.
>
> Thin
Hi
OK I have now actually tested it, and I have read the patch more
carefully, but I am afraid I still have concerns.
The key problem is the patch assumes that the display of a thread in a
search buffer depends only on the thread. And this is not true as the
number of matching messages is displa
17 matches
Mail list logo