On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:44:29 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins finestructure.net> wrote:
>> In order to push forward with this, though, I think we really need to
>> have a complete unit test for this new functionality. ?We usually like
>> to see
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:44:29 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
In order to push forward with this, though, I think we really need to
have a complete unit test for this new functionality. We
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:30:56 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Is just because it add a function to the library that you think this
> might be problematic? I don't think we are super-dogmatic about the
> library never growing. When notmuch started, there were no bindings, so
> in retrospect maybe
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:30:56 -0300, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Is just because it add a function to the library that you think this
might be problematic? I don't think we are super-dogmatic about the
library never growing. When notmuch started, there were no bindings, so
in
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:18:07 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>
> I'm still marking it as RFC. It works for me, but patch 1 might be deemed
> unacceptable.
>
Hi Jani;
Is just because it add a function to the library that you think this
might be problematic? I don't think we are super-dogmatic about
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:44:29 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> Hi, Jani. Thanks for working on this. This should also be valuable for
> vim users.
Thanks for your interest! :)
> In order to push forward with this, though, I think we really need to
> have a complete unit test for this new
Hi, this is an iteration of id:"cover.1319833617.git.jani at nikula.org"
addressing
comments on the list and IRC. Main changes:
* Results are now limited based on threads (not messages) for thread and summary
output. This is accomplished with a new lib function to count the number of
threads
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:18:07 +0200, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
I'm still marking it as RFC. It works for me, but patch 1 might be deemed
unacceptable.
Hi Jani;
Is just because it add a function to the library that you think this
might be problematic? I don't think we are
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 00:07:59 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:44:29 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins finestructure.net> wrote:
> Right. I'd just like to make sure the approach I've taken (particularly
> patch 1 in the set as it touches the lib) is acceptable before spending
> time
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:18:07 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Hi, this is an iteration of id:"cover.1319833617.git.jani at nikula.org"
> addressing
> comments on the list and IRC. Main changes:
>
> * Results are now limited based on threads (not messages) for thread and
> summary
> output. This
Hi, this is an iteration of id:cover.1319833617.git.j...@nikula.org addressing
comments on the list and IRC. Main changes:
* Results are now limited based on threads (not messages) for thread and summary
output. This is accomplished with a new lib function to count the number of
threads in
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 00:07:59 +0200, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:44:29 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
Right. I'd just like to make sure the approach I've taken (particularly
patch 1 in the set as it touches the lib) is acceptable
12 matches
Mail list logo
