On Sun 08 Apr 2018 at 19:14 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Floris Bruynooghe writes:
>
>> This series looks good to me, would be great to have! Do you want to
>> commit them this or should I just incorporate it and submit together
>> with tests once actual tests exist. You could
Here's a tidied version of the reference loop fix. There's actually
only one non-comment line of code changed. As you can guess from the
NEWS patch, I'm planning a point release to include this bugfix. I'd
also like to include the mset fix [1], so it would be great if someone
could test that.
Guard against regressions where there is no crash, but output is
wrong.
---
test/T050-new.sh | 11 ++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/test/T050-new.sh b/test/T050-new.sh
index 222c341e..91722e24 100755
--- a/test/T050-new.sh
+++ b/test/T050-new.sh
@@ -355,7
---
NEWS | 9 +
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
index 39ce7707..e9b1dcd9 100644
--- a/NEWS
+++ b/NEWS
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+Notmuch 0.26.2 (UNRELEASED)
+===
+
+Library Changes
+---
+
+Make thread indexing more robust against
This documents the bug discussed in
id:87d10042pu@curie.anarc.at
---
test/T050-new.sh | 5 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/test/T050-new.sh b/test/T050-new.sh
index cd522364..c55a2d97 100755
--- a/test/T050-new.sh
+++ b/test/T050-new.sh
@@ -354,4 +354,9 @@ exit
These have an 'In-Reply-To' loop, which currently confuses "notmuch
new".
Courtesy of anarcat.
---
...521463752.R13151765805797588408.curie:2,FS | 173 +
...1521463753.R9368947314807690338.curie:2,FS | 180 ++
2 files changed, 353 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
Other parts of notmuch (e.g. notmuch show) expect each thread to
contain at least one top level message, and crash if this expectation
is not met.
---
lib/thread.cc| 8 +++-
test/T050-new.sh | 1 -
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/thread.cc
This implements basic attachment checks like those present in other
MUAs (e.g. Thunderbird, IIRC). A hook watches for keywords, which are
implemented using a customizable regex, that indicate the user might
have wanted to include an attachement while writing the email, but has
forgotten.
We
Antoine Beaupré writes:
> Hi!
>
> So I've tried the patch and it seems to fix the bug. I'll run with a
> patch version for a while to see if anything's off, but so far so good
> I'd say.
>
> Furthermore, it's not possible for me to reproduce the bug in my regular
>