On Sat, 08 Feb 2014, "W. Trevor King" wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:34:18PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:15:35PM +, Mark Walters wrote:
>> > My only other comment on the series is that you should update
>> > devel/schemata in the first patch to reflect this
Initially I agreed with Bremner that we should be as faithful as
possible in our json/sexp output. However, looking at other headers like
cc: it seems that this can be present but empty (at least I sent myself
a message with that property), but that notmuch-show omits it.
Looking at the code for
Mark Walters writes:
> Looking at the code for that pathway we use
> g_mime_message_get_recipients followed by
> internet_address_list_to_string and we only output a cc: pair if this is
> non-null (which means we had an address)
>
> In light of that I think changing the cli to only output
> cont
Mark Walters writes:
> Looking at the code for that pathway we use
> g_mime_message_get_recipients followed by
> internet_address_list_to_string and we only output a cc: pair if this is
> non-null (which means we had an address)
>
> In light of that I think changing the cli to only output
> cont
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014, "W. Trevor King" wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:34:18PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:15:35PM +, Mark Walters wrote:
>> > My only other comment on the series is that you should update
>> > devel/schemata in the first patch to reflect this
Initially I agreed with Bremner that we should be as faithful as
possible in our json/sexp output. However, looking at other headers like
cc: it seems that this can be present but empty (at least I sent myself
a message with that property), but that notmuch-show omits it.
Looking at the code for
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:34:18PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:15:35PM +, Mark Walters wrote:
> > My only other comment on the series is that you should update
> > devel/schemata in the first patch to reflect this addition.
>
> Ah, I didn't realize that file exist
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:34:18PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:15:35PM +, Mark Walters wrote:
> > My only other comment on the series is that you should update
> > devel/schemata in the first patch to reflect this addition.
>
> Ah, I didn't realize that file exist
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 08:55:02AM -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
> > Rather than patching this in Emacs, maybe we should collapse the
> > “not set” and “set to empty string” cases in notmuch-show.c? I
> > can't think of any reasons why someone would want to distinguish
>
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 08:55:02AM -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
> > Rather than patching this in Emacs, maybe we should collapse the
> > ?not set? and ?set to empty string? cases in notmuch-show.c? I
> > can't think of any reasons why someone would want to distinguish
>
"W. Trevor King" writes:
>
> Rather than patching this in Emacs, maybe we should collapse the ?not
> set? and ?set to empty string? cases in notmuch-show.c? I can't think
> of any reasons why someone would want to distinguish those two cases,
> and it's easier all around if we standardize the re
"W. Trevor King" writes:
>
> Rather than patching this in Emacs, maybe we should collapse the “not
> set” and “set to empty string” cases in notmuch-show.c? I can't think
> of any reasons why someone would want to distinguish those two cases,
> and it's easier all around if we standardize the re
On Tue, Feb 04 2014, "W. Trevor King" wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 10:44:39PM +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote:
>> having notmuch patch email as expected test output feels a bit
>> confusing to me -- especially as 'git grep' may catch some of the
>> (possibly future-outdated) content...
>
> There wer
On Tue, Feb 04 2014, "W. Trevor King" wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 10:44:39PM +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote:
>> having notmuch patch email as expected test output feels a bit
>> confusing to me -- especially as 'git grep' may catch some of the
>> (possibly future-outdated) content...
>
> There wer
On Mon, Feb 03 2014, "W. Trevor King" wrote:
> On the rss2email list, Victor Orlikowski pointed out [1] that a number
> of MUAs don't use the Subject header of attached message/rfc822 parts
> to label multipart/digest subparts [2]. Instead, notmuch and several
> other MUAs use the filename param
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014, "W. Trevor King" wrote:
> On the rss2email list, Victor Orlikowski pointed out [1] that a number
> of MUAs don't use the Subject header of attached message/rfc822 parts
> to label multipart/digest subparts [2]. Instead, notmuch and several
> other MUAs use the filename param
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:34:18PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:15:35PM +, Mark Walters wrote:
> > I think we should only display/use the content-description if it
> > exists and is non-empty.
>
> Sounds good to me. I'll queue this and a test for v2.
Rather than
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:34:18PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:15:35PM +, Mark Walters wrote:
> > I think we should only display/use the content-description if it
> > exists and is non-empty.
>
> Sounds good to me. I'll queue this and a test for v2.
Rather than
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 10:44:39PM +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> having notmuch patch email as expected test output feels a bit
> confusing to me -- especially as 'git grep' may catch some of the
> (possibly future-outdated) content...
There were two very similar patches with filename attachments in
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 10:44:39PM +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> having notmuch patch email as expected test output feels a bit
> confusing to me -- especially as 'git grep' may catch some of the
> (possibly future-outdated) content...
There were two very similar patches with filename attachments in
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:15:35PM +, Mark Walters wrote:
> I think we should only display/use the content-description if it
> exists and is non-empty.
Sounds good to me. I'll queue this and a test for v2.
> My only other comment on the series is that you should update
> devel/schemata in th
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:15:35PM +, Mark Walters wrote:
> I think we should only display/use the content-description if it
> exists and is non-empty.
Sounds good to me. I'll queue this and a test for v2.
> My only other comment on the series is that you should update
> devel/schemata in th
On the rss2email list, Victor Orlikowski pointed out [1] that a number
of MUAs don't use the Subject header of attached message/rfc822 parts
to label multipart/digest subparts [2]. Instead, notmuch and several
other MUAs use the filename parameter [3] as a content hint. Using
the filename paramet
23 matches
Mail list logo
