On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:47:12 -0400, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:15:48 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > [*] Even more simplification is possible if we stop trying to hide
> > header components. Several people have requested that To and Cc be
> > visible all the time.
>
> Hey, Carl
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:59:36 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> Your concerns appear to be about `notmuch-wash-wrap-long-lines'. I agree
> that it can generate unfortunate results in the "deep thread, narrow
> terminal" case. Are the other two functions okay?
If they had come in as separate patches,
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:59:36 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> Your concerns appear to be about `notmuch-wash-wrap-long-lines'. I agree
> that it can generate unfortunate results in the "deep thread, narrow
> terminal" case. Are the other two functions okay?
If they had come in as separate patches,
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:57:42 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> > Hey, Carl. I had actually been meaning to bring this up. I actually
> > don't like having the headers collapsed at all, so I am definitely in
> > favor of the idea of doing away with this "feature". At the very least,
> > I would li
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:57:42 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> > Hey, Carl. I had actually been meaning to bring this up. I actually
> > don't like having the headers collapsed at all, so I am definitely in
> > favor of the idea of doing away with this "feature". At the very least,
> > I would li
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:47:12 -0400, Jameson Rollins
wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:15:48 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > [*] Even more simplification is possible if we stop trying to hide
> > header components. Several people have requested that To and Cc be
> > visible all the time.
>
> Hey, Car
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:10:15 -0400, Servilio Afre Puentes wrote:
> > Showing only one (with a variable allowing you to express preference) is
> > my intention. Any non-shown parts will appear as attachments - you can
> > save them using the button (and perhaps later view them).
>
> Why not see th
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:58:16 -0400, Servilio Afre Puentes wrote:
> On 21 April 2010 17:03, Carl Worth wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> [...]
> > Meanwhile, another issue with the result of this series is that I now
> > seem to get rendering for both the tex
On 22 April 2010 08:30, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:58:16 -0400, Servilio Afre Puentes gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 21 April 2010 17:03, Carl Worth wrote:
>> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Meanwhile, another issue with the result of thi
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:03:03 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > commit 2b6201fbf9209a875f216d48c30b95a6f583c575
> >
> > emacs: Add more functions to clean up text/plain parts
> >
> > Add:
> > - notmuch-wash-wrap-long-lines: Wrap lines longer than the width of
> > the current wind
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:10:15 -0400, Servilio Afre Puentes
wrote:
> > Showing only one (with a variable allowing you to express preference) is
> > my intention. Any non-shown parts will appear as attachments - you can
> > save them using the button (and perhaps later view them).
>
> Why not see t
On 22 April 2010 08:30, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:58:16 -0400, Servilio Afre Puentes
> wrote:
>> On 21 April 2010 17:03, Carl Worth wrote:
>> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Meanwhile, another issue with the result of this series
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:15:48 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> Sure. Hiding a message with 'b' is visually identical to hiding it with
> RET.
That's not quite true. `b' will (would) hide only the body. If the
header is visible `b' will not hide it.
> Except that the internal mechanism is distinct, so t
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:58:16 -0400, Servilio Afre Puentes
wrote:
> On 21 April 2010 17:03, Carl Worth wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> [...]
> > Meanwhile, another issue with the result of this series is that I now
> > seem to get rendering for both the te
On 21 April 2010 17:03, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
[...]
> Meanwhile, another issue with the result of this series is that I now
> seem to get rendering for both the text/plain and the text/html
> alternatives when a message has both. For now, t
On 21 April 2010 17:03, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
[...]
> Meanwhile, another issue with the result of this series is that I now
> seem to get rendering for both the text/plain and the text/html
> alternatives when a message has both. For now, t
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:03:03 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > commit 2b6201fbf9209a875f216d48c30b95a6f583c575
> >
> > emacs: Add more functions to clean up text/plain parts
> >
> > Add:
> > - notmuch-wash-wrap-long-lines: Wrap lines longer than the width of
> > the current wind
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:15:48 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> Sure. Hiding a message with 'b' is visually identical to hiding it with
> RET.
That's not quite true. `b' will (would) hide only the body. If the
header is visible `b' will not hide it.
> Except that the internal mechanism is distinct, so t
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:15:48 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> [*] Even more simplification is possible if we stop trying to hide
> header components. Several people have requested that To and Cc be
> visible all the time.
Hey, Carl. I had actually been meaning to bring this up. I actually
don't like
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> commit 7dedc95af671173a57bafd973604614c03121ce6
>
> emacs: JSON based implementation
I merged this and followed it up immediately with a commit to remove the
ability to toggle the body visibility separate from the message
visibilit
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> commit 7dedc95af671173a57bafd973604614c03121ce6
>
> emacs: JSON based implementation
I merged this and followed it up immediately with a commit to remove the
ability to toggle the body visibility separate from the message
visibilit
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:25:36 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> I'm currently working on the make-emacs-use-JSON patch, (it's got some
> confusion about "body visible" vs. "message visible" that I want to
> fix before pushing).
Could you describe the confusion?
dme.
--
David Edmondson, http://dme.org
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:15:48 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> [*] Even more simplification is possible if we stop trying to hide
> header components. Several people have requested that To and Cc be
> visible all the time.
Hey, Carl. I had actually been meaning to bring this up. I actually
don't like
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:39:50 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:25:36 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > I'm currently working on the make-emacs-use-JSON patch, (it's got some
> > confusion about "body visible" vs. "message visible" that I want to
> > fix before pushing).
>
> Could
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:39:50 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:25:36 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > I'm currently working on the make-emacs-use-JSON patch, (it's got some
> > confusion about "body visible" vs. "message visible" that I want to
> > fix before pushing).
>
> Could
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:25:36 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> I'm currently working on the make-emacs-use-JSON patch, (it's got some
> confusion about "body visible" vs. "message visible" that I want to
> fix before pushing).
Could you describe the confusion?
dme.
--
David Edmondson, http://dme.org
_
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:27:02 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> The second chunk was intended to cover a similar case (len == 0), but
> becomes unnecessary after the first chunk. At least, that's what I
> convinced myself after the conversation with Anthony Towns
> (id:h2y87b3a4191004060117v5421db8ej
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:27:02 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> The second chunk was intended to cover a similar case (len == 0), but
> becomes unnecessary after the first chunk. At least, that's what I
> convinced myself after the conversation with Anthony Towns
> (id:h2y87b3a4191004060117v5421db8ej
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:07:40 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > commit 8586a86b9dd4ed2406a2fbda6c08bdc6a598cfd8
> > debian: git should ignore packaging intermediate files
>
> I committed an alternate version of this, (with a new debian/.gitignore
> file). I used more wildcarding too. And I couldn'
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:07:40 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > commit 8586a86b9dd4ed2406a2fbda6c08bdc6a598cfd8
> > debian: git should ignore packaging intermediate files
>
> I committed an alternate version of this, (with a new debian/.gitignore
> file). I used more wildcarding too. And I couldn'
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:07:40 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
>
> I've got some misgivings about this one. First, notmuch-search-hook is
> a hook for the user to manipulate, while the hl-line-mode functionality
> is something that should be on
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:07:40 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
>
> I've got some misgivings about this one. First, notmuch-search-hook is
> a hook for the user to manipulate, while the hl-line-mode functionality
> is something that should be on
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> This is the same set rebased onto 0.2.
Thanks for these, David!
> commit 8586a86b9dd4ed2406a2fbda6c08bdc6a598cfd8
> debian: git should ignore packaging intermediate files
I committed an alternate version of this, (with a new debi
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:27:39 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> This is the same set rebased onto 0.2.
Thanks for these, David!
> commit 8586a86b9dd4ed2406a2fbda6c08bdc6a598cfd8
> debian: git should ignore packaging intermediate files
I committed an alternate version of this, (with a new debi
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:29:29 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> Carl, please consider the following (from the 'for-cworth' branch of
> git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git) for 0.2. I hope to have some more UI
> changes merged next week.
This is the same set rebased onto 0.2.
commit 8586a86b9dd4ed2406a
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:29:29 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> Carl, please consider the following (from the 'for-cworth' branch of
> git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git) for 0.2. I hope to have some more UI
> changes merged next week.
This is the same set rebased onto 0.2.
commit 8586a86b9dd4ed2406a
Carl, please consider the following (from the 'for-cworth' branch of
git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git) for 0.2. I hope to have some more UI
changes merged next week.
commit 651f8ca16beadd658c412075a585e4ec90e31456
Author: David Edmondson
Date: Mon Mar 22 14:50:20 2010 +
emacs/notmuch-s
Carl, please consider the following (from the 'for-cworth' branch of
git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git) for 0.2. I hope to have some more UI
changes merged next week.
commit 651f8ca16beadd658c412075a585e4ec90e31456
Author: David Edmondson
Date: Mon Mar 22 14:50:20 2010 +
emacs/notmuch-s
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 09:08:34 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> It's the 'for-cworth' branch of git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git.
>
> There's also a simple update to tell git to ignore notmuch-shared.
Thanks. This is pushed.
-Carl
pgpRssLrxCuvt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 09:08:34 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> It's the 'for-cworth' branch of git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git.
>
> There's also a simple update to tell git to ignore notmuch-shared.
Thanks. This is pushed.
-Carl
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was s
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 08:33:00 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> I'll declare common variables and 'exported' functions in
> 'notmuch-lib.el'. It may take a few days (I'm supposed to be on
> holiday).
It was quicker than expected. Using 'declare-function' in a file that is
required didn't have the ri
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:21:57 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> The warnings about unknown functions can be eliminated by use the
> declare-function macro; if you have emacs lisp reference manual (it
> required the package emacs23-common-non-dfsg on Debian) then you can
> run:
>
> ESC ESC : (info "(el
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 08:33:00 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> I'll declare common variables and 'exported' functions in
> 'notmuch-lib.el'. It may take a few days (I'm supposed to be on
> holiday).
It was quicker than expected. Using 'declare-function' in a file that is
required didn't have the ri
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:21:57 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> The warnings about unknown functions can be eliminated by use the
> declare-function macro; if you have emacs lisp reference manual (it
> required the package emacs23-common-non-dfsg on Debian) then you can
> run:
>
> ESC ESC : (info "(el
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:37:46 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
>
> If I apply this patch as is, then when compiling the notmuch-show.el I
> get the following warnings:
>
> In notmuch-show:
> notmuch-show.el:969:34:Warning: reference to free variable `notmuch-command'
>
> In end of data:
> notmuc
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:37:46 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
>
> If I apply this patch as is, then when compiling the notmuch-show.el I
> get the following warnings:
>
> In notmuch-show:
> notmuch-show.el:969:34:Warning: reference to free variable `notmuch-command'
>
> In end of data:
> notmuc
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:34:57 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> As part of having more information about MIME structure in the JSON
> output (multipart/alternative, for example), I think that we (I, if I
> get to it first) will need to re-work the `show' implementation
> somewhat. We should wait unti
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:34:57 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> As part of having more information about MIME structure in the JSON
> output (multipart/alternative, for example), I think that we (I, if I
> get to it first) will need to re-work the `show' implementation
> somewhat. We should wait unti
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:32:44 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> * commit a9590dfb4efc2c05a35948ef4522c362eb788c10
> | Author: David Edmondson
> | Date: Thu Apr 1 11:38:30 2010 +0100
> |
> | Makefile: Add the emacs directory to load-path when compiling
That's a nice one-line summary of the co
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:32:44 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> * commit a9590dfb4efc2c05a35948ef4522c362eb788c10
> | Author: David Edmondson
> | Date: Thu Apr 1 11:38:30 2010 +0100
> |
> | Makefile: Add the emacs directory to load-path when compiling
That's a nice one-line summary of the co
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:53:34 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> Having played with it a tiny bit, I do think that since the part command
> always requires a --part option that we might as well just make it part
> of notmuch show. That is:
>
> notmuch show --part=2 id:foo
>
> instead of:
>
>
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:53:34 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:53:04 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> > The updated changes are on the 'dme-for-cworth' branch now.
>
> Thanks for the quick update, David!
>
> I've pushed this now.
Thanks. Here's another set to consider. They are
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:53:34 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> Having played with it a tiny bit, I do think that since the part command
> always requires a --part option that we might as well just make it part
> of notmuch show. That is:
>
> notmuch show --part=2 id:foo
>
> instead of:
>
>
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:53:34 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:53:04 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> > The updated changes are on the 'dme-for-cworth' branch now.
>
> Thanks for the quick update, David!
>
> I've pushed this now.
Thanks. Here's another set to consider. They are
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:53:04 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> The updated changes are on the 'dme-for-cworth' branch now.
Thanks for the quick update, David!
I've pushed this now.
Having played with it a tiny bit, I do think that since the part command
always requires a --part option that we mig
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:53:04 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> The updated changes are on the 'dme-for-cworth' branch now.
Thanks for the quick update, David!
I've pushed this now.
Having played with it a tiny bit, I do think that since the part command
always requires a --part option that we mig
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:09:57 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:41:03 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> > Carl, a couple of patches that I'd like you to consider. They are the
> > first two on the `dme' branch of git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git.
The updated changes are on the 'dme-
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:09:57 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:41:03 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> > Carl, a couple of patches that I'd like you to consider. They are the
> > first two on the `dme' branch of git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git.
The updated changes are on the 'dme-
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:09:57 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> More significantly, this level of documentation needs to be put into the
> "notmuch help" output (instead of the placeholder that's there in the
> current patch). It also needs to be added to the man page in notmuch.1.
Allow me to shameless
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:09:57 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> More significantly, this level of documentation needs to be put into the
> "notmuch help" output (instead of the placeholder that's there in the
> current patch). It also needs to be added to the man page in notmuch.1.
Allow me to shameless
Carl, a couple of patches that I'd like you to consider. They are the
first two on the `dme' branch of git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git.
http://github.com/dme/notmuch/commit/f86254e4509ed02731aa3eaa8541df1f2d11e400
> notmuch-show: Add unix and pretty dates to the JSON output
>
> Include a 'date_u
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:41:03 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> Carl, a couple of patches that I'd like you to consider. They are the
> first two on the `dme' branch of git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git.
Thanks, David!
I've got your branch fetched here and I plan to start playing with
it. The featur
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:41:03 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> Carl, a couple of patches that I'd like you to consider. They are the
> first two on the `dme' branch of git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git.
Thanks, David!
I've got your branch fetched here and I plan to start playing with
it. The featur
Carl, a couple of patches that I'd like you to consider. They are the
first two on the `dme' branch of git://github.com/dme/notmuch.git.
http://github.com/dme/notmuch/commit/f86254e4509ed02731aa3eaa8541df1f2d11e400
> notmuch-show: Add unix and pretty dates to the JSON output
>
> Include a 'date_u
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:54:22 -0500, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> as you already know, I've spent some time working on a vim-based
> interface to notmuch. I currently only depend on the 'march:[01]'
> patches that we talked about briefly on irc. Everything else is
> isolated to the 'vim' directory a
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:54:22 -0500, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> as you already know, I've spent some time working on a vim-based
> interface to notmuch. I currently only depend on the 'march:[01]'
> patches that we talked about briefly on irc. Everything else is
> isolated to the 'vim' directory a
Carl,
as you already know, I've spent some time working on a vim-based
interface to notmuch. I currently only depend on the 'march:[01]'
patches that we talked about briefly on irc. Everything else is
isolated to the 'vim' directory and should not effect anyone else.
My efforts are cataloged he
67 matches
Mail list logo
