[PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:22:46 -0700, Carl Worth wrote: > On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:04 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:05:00 -0700, Carl Worth wrote: > > > > I do not think we need a test for this fix. What we need are tests for > > > > FCC functionality when

[PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:58:23 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote: > Well, I should have prepared a better commit message from the > beginning. Then no pushing might have been needed :) That, or a test case, (which would have clued me in to read the correct interpretation of the original commit

[PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:04 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote: > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:05:00 -0700, Carl Worth wrote: > > > I do not think we need a test for this fix. What we need are tests for > > > FCC functionality when notmuch-fcc-dirs is a list. > > > > Yes! I've written these now. And

Re: [PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:22:46 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote: On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:04 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:05:00 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote: I do not think we need a test for this fix. What we need

Re: [PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:58:23 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I should have prepared a better commit message from the beginning. Then no pushing might have been needed :) That, or a test case, (which would have clued me in to read the correct interpretation of

[PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:05:00 -0700, Carl Worth wrote: Non-text part: multipart/signed > On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:49:57 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, it says that changes are in notmuch 0.5. So "old" and "previous" > > refer to pre-0.5 (i.e. 0.4) and "new" refers to 0.5. > >

[PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:04 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote: > "notmuch was incorecctly detecting this as the ..." is not right. Thanks. I was sure my commit message wasn't right yet. That was my point---I didn't know what the right message would be! ;-) > It is a wrong-type-argument lisp error

[PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:49:57 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote: > Well, it says that changes are in notmuch 0.5. So "old" and "previous" > refer to pre-0.5 (i.e. 0.4) and "new" refers to 0.5. Sure, but I happen to ahve already forgotten the details of how the variable could be configured in 0.4 and

Re: [PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:05:00 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote: Non-text part: multipart/signed On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:49:57 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote: Well, it says that changes are in notmuch 0.5. So old and previous refer to pre-0.5 (i.e. 0.4) and

Re: [PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22:04 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote: notmuch was incorecctly detecting this as the ... is not right. Thanks. I was sure my commit message wasn't right yet. That was my point---I didn't know what the right message would be! ;-) It is a

[PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

Hi Carl. On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 22:10:07 -0700, Carl Worth wrote: > On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:51:49 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins finestructure.net> wrote: > Hi Jamie, > > I've pushed the next few patches up to this point, (with only one > functional change---I fixed a new test case to correctly use

Re: [PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

Hi Carl. On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 22:10:07 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote: On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:51:49 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: Hi Jamie, I've pushed the next few patches up to this point, (with only one functional change---I fixed a new test

[PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:51:49 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: Hi Jamie, I've pushed the next few patches up to this point, (with only one functional change---I fixed a new test case to correctly use notmuch_search_sanitize to avoid spurious failures unmatching thread ID values). This patch,

Re: [PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:51:49 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: Hi Jamie, I've pushed the next few patches up to this point, (with only one functional change---I fixed a new test case to correctly use notmuch_search_sanitize to avoid spurious failures unmatching

[PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

From: Dmitry Kurochkin In notmuch 0.5 notmuch-fcc-dirs style changed. The previous code did not correctly identify an old configuration and, as a consequence, broke new configurations. The fix was extracted from a bigger patch series by David Edmondson

[PATCH 14/25] Fix old style notmuch-fcc-dirs configuration check.

From: Dmitry Kurochkin dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com In notmuch 0.5 notmuch-fcc-dirs style changed. The previous code did not correctly identify an old configuration and, as a consequence, broke new configurations. The fix was extracted from a bigger patch series by David Edmondson