On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:22:42 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:21:24 -0400, David Bremner
> wrote:
> > I'm leaning to revert this patch. Any opposition?
>
> Please revert it and I'll investigate further.
Reverted.
d
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:21:24 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> I'm leaning to revert this patch. Any opposition?
Please revert it and I'll investigate further.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 b
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:22:42 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:21:24 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> > I'm leaning to revert this patch. Any opposition?
>
> Please revert it and I'll investigate further.
Reverted.
d
___
notmuch mai
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:51:30 -0500, Aaron Ecay wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:22:27 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:17:03 +0100, Pieter Praet
> > wrote:
> > > Alas, those text properties actually *were* effective (and I liked them :)
> >
> > Well, not in emacs 24. My
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:21:24 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> I'm leaning to revert this patch. Any opposition?
Please revert it and I'll investigate further.
pgp2sWrScOERx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
h
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:51:30 -0500, Aaron Ecay wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:22:27 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:17:03 +0100, Pieter Praet
> > wrote:
> > > Alas, those text properties actually *were* effective (and I liked them :)
> >
> > Well, not in emacs 24. My
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:22:27 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:17:03 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > Alas, those text properties actually *were* effective (and I liked them :)
>
> Well, not in emacs 24. My reading of the source was that overlays were
> intended to stomp on te
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:51:30 -0500, Aaron Ecay wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:22:27 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:17:03 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > > Alas, those text properties actually *were* effective (and I liked them :)
> >
> > Well, not in emacs 24. My readi
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:51:30 -0500, Aaron Ecay wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:22:27 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:17:03 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > > Alas, those text properties actually *were* effective (and I liked them :)
> >
> > Well, not in emacs 24. My readi
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:22:27 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:17:03 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > Alas, those text properties actually *were* effective (and I liked them :)
>
> Well, not in emacs 24. My reading of the source was that overlays were
> intended to stomp on te
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:22:27 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:17:03 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > Alas, those text properties actually *were* effective (and I liked them :)
>
> Well, not in emacs 24. My reading of the source was that overlays were
> intended to stomp on te
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:47:14 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> The tags were coloured using text properties. Unfortunately that text
> (the header line) also has an overlay, which overrides the text
> properties. There's not point in applying text properties that will
> never be seen.
> ---
> emacs
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:17:03 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> Alas, those text properties actually *were* effective (and I liked them :)
Well, not in emacs 24. My reading of the source was that overlays were
intended to stomp on text properties, but that could have been wrong.
Do they look correct w
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:22:27 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:17:03 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > Alas, those text properties actually *were* effective (and I liked them :)
>
> Well, not in emacs 24. My reading of the source was that overlays were
> intended to stomp on te
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:17:03 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> Alas, those text properties actually *were* effective (and I liked them :)
Well, not in emacs 24. My reading of the source was that overlays were
intended to stomp on text properties, but that could have been wrong.
Do they look correct w
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:47:14 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> The tags were coloured using text properties. Unfortunately that text
> (the header line) also has an overlay, which overrides the text
> properties. There's not point in applying text properties that will
> never be seen.
> ---
> emacs
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:47:14 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> The tags were coloured using text properties. Unfortunately that text
> (the header line) also has an overlay, which overrides the text
> properties. There's not point in applying text properties that will
> never be seen.
Pushed.
d
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:47:14 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> The tags were coloured using text properties. Unfortunately that text
> (the header line) also has an overlay, which overrides the text
> properties. There's not point in applying text properties that will
> never be seen.
Pushed.
d
__
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:09:40 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:42:28 +0100, Xavier Maillard
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:29:57 -0500, Austin Clements
> > wrote:
> > > LGTM.
> >
> > uh, what ?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=LGTM
LGTM too no :D
/Xavier
Hi David,
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:47:14 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> The tags were coloured using text properties. Unfortunately that text
> (the header line) also has an overlay, which overrides the text
> properties. There's not point in applying text properties that will
> never be seen.
Ye
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:29:57 -0500, Austin Clements wrote:
> LGTM.
uh, what ?
/Xavier
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:09:40 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:42:28 +0100, Xavier Maillard
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:29:57 -0500, Austin Clements
> > wrote:
> > > LGTM.
> >
> > uh, what ?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=LGTM
LGTM too no :D
/Xavier
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:42:28 +0100, Xavier Maillard wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:29:57 -0500, Austin Clements wrote:
> > LGTM.
>
> uh, what ?
http://www.google.com/search?q=LGTM
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.or
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:42:28 +0100, Xavier Maillard
wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:29:57 -0500, Austin Clements
> wrote:
> > LGTM.
>
> uh, what ?
http://www.google.com/search?q=LGTM
Hi David,
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:47:14 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> The tags were coloured using text properties. Unfortunately that text
> (the header line) also has an overlay, which overrides the text
> properties. There's not point in applying text properties that will
> never be seen.
Ye
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:29:57 -0500, Austin Clements wrote:
> LGTM.
uh, what ?
/Xavier
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
LGTM.
Quoth David Edmondson on Dec 27 at 4:47 pm:
> The tags were coloured using text properties. Unfortunately that text
> (the header line) also has an overlay, which overrides the text
> properties. There's not point in applying text properties that will
> never be seen.
> ---
> emacs/notmuch
LGTM.
Quoth David Edmondson on Dec 27 at 4:47 pm:
> The tags were coloured using text properties. Unfortunately that text
> (the header line) also has an overlay, which overrides the text
> properties. There's not point in applying text properties that will
> never be seen.
> ---
> emacs/notmuch
The tags were coloured using text properties. Unfortunately that text
(the header line) also has an overlay, which overrides the text
properties. There's not point in applying text properties that will
never be seen.
---
emacs/notmuch-show.el |8 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 de
The tags were coloured using text properties. Unfortunately that text
(the header line) also has an overlay, which overrides the text
properties. There's not point in applying text properties that will
never be seen.
---
emacs/notmuch-show.el |8 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 de
30 matches
Mail list logo
