I'm marking this as moreinfo since the patch as is doesn't seem to
satisfy people. Personally I think the key point is that
e.g. date:2012-12-10 should do something reasonable (presumably return
all messages on that day, pax questions about timezone); whether we need
new prefixes I'm less
I'm marking this as moreinfo since the patch as is doesn't seem to
satisfy people. Personally I think the key point is that
e.g. date:2012-12-10 should do something reasonable (presumably return
all messages on that day, pax questions about timezone); whether we need
new prefixes I'm less
On Sun, Dec 09 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 08 2012, David Bremner wrote:
>>> Patch? Concrete wording suggestion?
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> It would be nice to not require both endpoints to be specified in date
>> searches. For
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08 2012, David Bremner wrote:
>> Patch? Concrete wording suggestion?
>
> How about:
>
> It would be nice to not require both endpoints to be specified in date
> searches. For example it would be nice to be able to say things like
Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
> On Fri, Dec 07 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Fine by me. I was just trying to clean up the file a bit, that's
>> all. The only downside I can think of is potential new users stumbling
>> on this and thinking we still don't have date queries. *shrug*.
>
> That's why
Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net writes:
On Fri, Dec 07 2012, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
Fine by me. I was just trying to clean up the file a bit, that's
all. The only downside I can think of is potential new users stumbling
on this and thinking we still don't have
On Sat, Dec 08 2012, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Patch? Concrete wording suggestion?
How about:
It would be nice to not require both endpoints to be specified in date
searches. For example it would be nice to be able to say things like
date:2009-01-1, to specify a search over a
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08 2012, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Patch? Concrete wording suggestion?
How about:
It would be nice to not require both endpoints to be specified in date
searches. For example it would be
On Sun, Dec 09 2012, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08 2012, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Patch? Concrete wording suggestion?
How about:
It would be nice to not require both endpoints to
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07 2012, David Bremner wrote:
>> Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
>>> Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like "since:2009-01-1"
>>> or "until:2009-01-1" really now work? As far as I can tell they don't.
>>> Nor are
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 12/07/2012 07:19 AM, David Bremner wrote:
>> For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It
>> would be reasonable to formulate a seperate TODO for supporting
>> things like date:2012-12-07
>
> Out of curiosity, how does
On Fri, Dec 07 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Fine by me. I was just trying to clean up the file a bit, that's
> all. The only downside I can think of is potential new users stumbling
> on this and thinking we still don't have date queries. *shrug*.
That's why it should probably just be modified,
On 12/07/2012 07:19 AM, David Bremner wrote:
> For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It
> would be reasonable to formulate a seperate TODO for supporting
> things like date:2012-12-07
Out of curiosity, how does this syntax interact with timezones?
If i send a mail in
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> ---
>> devel/TODO |9 -
>> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
>> index eb757af..277a997 100644
>> --- a/devel/TODO
>> +++ b/devel/TODO
>> @@ -163,15
On Fri, Dec 07 2012, David Bremner wrote:
> Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
>> Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like "since:2009-01-1"
>> or "until:2009-01-1" really now work? As far as I can tell they don't.
>> Nor are they documented if they do.
>
> For specifying one-ended
Jameson Graef Rollins writes:
> Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like "since:2009-01-1"
> or "until:2009-01-1" really now work? As far as I can tell they don't.
> Nor are they documented if they do.
For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It
would be
---
devel/TODO |9 -
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
index eb757af..277a997 100644
--- a/devel/TODO
+++ b/devel/TODO
@@ -163,15 +163,6 @@ vs. tag-when-all-files-flagged (* above)).
Add an interface to accept a "key" and a byte stream, rather than
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06 2012, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
---
devel/TODO |9 -
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
index eb757af..277a997 100644
--- a/devel/TODO
+++
Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net writes:
Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like since:2009-01-1
or until:2009-01-1 really now work? As far as I can tell they don't.
Nor are they documented if they do.
For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax
On Fri, Dec 07 2012, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net writes:
Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like since:2009-01-1
or until:2009-01-1 really now work? As far as I can tell they don't.
Nor are they documented if they do.
On 12/07/2012 07:19 AM, David Bremner wrote:
For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It
would be reasonable to formulate a seperate TODO for supporting
things like date:2012-12-07
Out of curiosity, how does this syntax interact with timezones?
If i send a mail in
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
On 12/07/2012 07:19 AM, David Bremner wrote:
For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It
would be reasonable to formulate a seperate TODO for supporting
things like date:2012-12-07
Out of
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07 2012, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net writes:
Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like since:2009-01-1
or until:2009-01-1 really now
On Fri, Dec 07 2012, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
Fine by me. I was just trying to clean up the file a bit, that's
all. The only downside I can think of is potential new users stumbling
on this and thinking we still don't have date queries. *shrug*.
That's why it should probably just be
On Thu, Dec 06 2012, Jani Nikula wrote:
> ---
> devel/TODO |9 -
> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
> index eb757af..277a997 100644
> --- a/devel/TODO
> +++ b/devel/TODO
> @@ -163,15 +163,6 @@ vs. tag-when-all-files-flagged (* above)).
> Add an
---
devel/TODO |9 -
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
index eb757af..277a997 100644
--- a/devel/TODO
+++ b/devel/TODO
@@ -163,15 +163,6 @@ vs. tag-when-all-files-flagged (* above)).
Add an interface to accept a key and a byte stream, rather than a
On Thu, Dec 06 2012, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
---
devel/TODO |9 -
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/devel/TODO b/devel/TODO
index eb757af..277a997 100644
--- a/devel/TODO
+++ b/devel/TODO
@@ -163,15 +163,6 @@ vs. tag-when-all-files-flagged (* above)).
27 matches
Mail list logo