Re: test failures on 32 bit architectures.

2020-06-23 Thread David Bremner
David Bremner  writes:

> David Bremner  writes:
>
>> I know, I know, I don't use 32 bit architectures either. However...
>>
>> Looking at [1], it looks like there two tests consistently failing on 32
>> bit architectures (and also mips64el, FWIW).
>
> Hmm. Somewhere between when I sent this message and now, some upgrade in
> debian unstable made these failures go away for me on i386. So maybe
> I'll wait a day or so for the autobuilders to catch up, and retry the
> more exotic architectures.

I managed to duplicate the bug on the debian i386 porterbox. Here the
timestamp is 0 in the database, so if some mangling happened, it
happened during indexing.
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: [PATCH] completion: remove "setup" from the list of possible completions

2020-06-23 Thread Ralph Seichter
* Tomi Ollila:

> You're wrong and I am right... ;)

"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you." (Dr. M. Sayer) :-)

> note that I also have no notmuch-* commands in my PATH, so 'notm'
> expands to 'notmuch ' ! \o/ FTW ;)

I like aliases like "nme" for "Notmuch in Emacs".

-Ralph
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: [PATCH] python-cffi: read version from notmuch version file

2020-06-23 Thread Floris Bruynooghe
On Tue 23 Jun 2020 at 13:43 +0300, Frank LENORMAND wrote:

> On Tue Jun 23 12:33:36 2020, David Bremner wrote:
>> Frank LENORMAND  writes:
>> > For example, 0.30.1, with the first two numbers coming from the main
>> > repository, and the last one acting as major for the bindings.
>> >
>> > 0.29.3 → 0.29.1
>> > 0.30-rc2 → 0.30.1-rc2
>> > etc.
>> >
>> 
>> I'm mainly interested in supporting two use cases for notmuch: building
>> everything from source, and binary packages of released versions. We've
>> already gone to some trouble to tell Emacs users that try to mix and
>> match versions that they are on their own, and this seems to apply even
>> more strongly to bindings users.
>>
>> With that said, if Floris thinks some hierarchical version is useful,
>> and is willing to maintain it, I can live with it. I would ask that:
>> 
>> 1) You keep the whole "upstream" version number. So the first example
>> would be 0.29.3.1.  0.29.1 is a previous version of notmuch, and that
>> ambiguity can only cause trouble.
>
> The idea was that the bindings will work with the X.Y version they were
> released for, since the last component in X.Y.Z is for minor changes that
> shouldn't affect the API.

Minor nitpicking, but API is not strong enough here, you'd need to
ensure ABI compatibility.

> So we can keep X.Y from NotMuch itself, and append some information that
> hint at the state of the bindings.
[...]
> Or the exact same version number, but then what should happen to it when
> the bindings are modified, but not NotMuch?

If it was bad enough to need a new release then I guess everyone gets
the same version bump as the entire project gets a bugfix release?

I honestly like the simplicity of just having the same version number
and not having to think about maintaining it separately.  It also means
we mostly don't have to worry about how setuptools/pip is going to view
the version number.

The only way I think this could break is if we want to break backwards
compatibility in the bindings, but we're not supposed to do that
(realistically an impossible task in Python if you ask me, but we can
aim for at least avoiding doing this knowingly).

The most likely version number sin is that the python bindings get a new
feature while libnotmuch only gets bugfix.  I also don't think this is
terrible, but that's perhaps unusual and frowned upon.  Maybe this
warrants a README in the bindings to warn the version number just tracks
libnotmuch and as far as python goes can only be used to order the
releases.
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: [PATCH] completion: remove "setup" from the list of possible completions

2020-06-23 Thread Tomi Ollila
On Sat, Jun 20 2020, Ralph Seichter wrote:

> * Tomi Ollila:
>
>> imo.the completions should primarily provide convenience to the
>> interactive user, to see all possible options (also those
>> seldomly.used) one can use help and namual pages...
>
> "Can use" being the operative term, not "should have to use". I would
> not want completion to omit certain commands, based on somebody else's
> notion of what is convenient, which in turn forces me to use other means
> of figuring out a seldom-used command I may or may not be aware of.
>
> If this means entering three characters instead of two, then three
> characters it is. Alternatively, make it a configurable option, with
> "convenient=false" being the default. I vote against the change.
>
> First world problems... ;-)

Indeed! You're wrong and I am right... ;) unfortunately the margin is too
small and status quo (i.e. what we have now) may prevail.

(well, I haven't even installed the completions -- perhaps I write my own
 zsh completions which will expand 'notmuch s' -> 'notmuch search' ;D) --
 note that I also have no notmuch-* commands in my PATH, so 'notm' expands
 to 'notmuch ' ! \o/ FTW ;)

>
> -Ralph

Tomi (one random user like all of us)
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: [PATCH] python-cffi: read version from notmuch version file

2020-06-23 Thread David Bremner
Frank LENORMAND  writes:
> For example, 0.30.1, with the first two numbers coming from the main
> repository, and the last one acting as major for the bindings.
>
> 0.29.3 → 0.29.1
> 0.30-rc2 → 0.30.1-rc2
> etc.
>

I'm mainly interested in supporting two use cases for notmuch: building
everything from source, and binary packages of released versions. We've
already gone to some trouble to tell Emacs users that try to mix and
match versions that they are on their own, and this seems to apply even
more strongly to bindings users.
   
With that said, if Floris thinks some hierarchical version is useful,
and is willing to maintain it, I can live with it. I would ask that:

1) You keep the whole "upstream" version number. So the first example
would be 0.29.3.1.  0.29.1 is a previous version of notmuch, and that
ambiguity can only cause trouble.

2) You don't insert things in the middle. So the second example would be
0.30-rc2.1

3) You have some way to distinguish between the notmuch version 0.30.1,
and the bindings version 0.30(.1) . I'd suggest using something
different than '.'  as a separator, but I don't know what the python
toolchain will tolerate.


___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch