On Sat, Aug 04 2012, david at tethera.net wrote:
> The positional argument to dump was deprecated quite a while ago. For
> restore, we never formally deprecated it. It seems a bit more
> consistent this way, but I don't mind leaving restore alone if people
> feel strongly about it.
LGTM.
Tomi
On Sat, Aug 04 2012, da...@tethera.net wrote:
> The positional argument to dump was deprecated quite a while ago. For
> restore, we never formally deprecated it. It seems a bit more
> consistent this way, but I don't mind leaving restore alone if people
> feel strongly about it.
LGTM.
Tomi
On Fri, Aug 03 2012, da...@tethera.net wrote:
> The positional argument to dump was deprecated quite a while ago. For
> restore, we never formally deprecated it. It seems a bit more
> consistent this way, but I don't mind leaving restore alone if people
> feel strongly about it.
LGTM.
jamie.
pg
On Fri, Aug 03 2012, david at tethera.net wrote:
> The positional argument to dump was deprecated quite a while ago. For
> restore, we never formally deprecated it. It seems a bit more
> consistent this way, but I don't mind leaving restore alone if people
> feel strongly about it.
LGTM.
jamie.
-
The positional argument to dump was deprecated quite a while ago. For
restore, we never formally deprecated it. It seems a bit more
consistent this way, but I don't mind leaving restore alone if people
feel strongly about it.
The positional argument to dump was deprecated quite a while ago. For
restore, we never formally deprecated it. It seems a bit more
consistent this way, but I don't mind leaving restore alone if people
feel strongly about it.
___
notmuch mailing list