tag sharing [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux]

2011-06-08 Thread Jesse Rosenthal
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:46:57 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > Did you guys try to address the issue of tag removal at all? I've been > trying to decide if this is something we need to worry about or not. > For instance, if cworth pushed a tag ".needs-review", you would probably > want to

tag sharing [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux]

2011-06-08 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:20:00 -0400, Jesse Rosenthal wrote: > After a conversation with David last year about bug-tracking, I worked > up a rough python-based prototype of this. It worked in terms of > namespaces, so Carl could associate the namespace "public" with a list > of tags he publishes

Re: tag sharing [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux]

2011-06-08 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:20:00 -0400, Jesse Rosenthal jrosent...@jhu.edu wrote: After a conversation with David last year about bug-tracking, I worked up a rough python-based prototype of this. It worked in terms of namespaces, so Carl could associate the namespace public with a list of tags he

Re: tag sharing [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux]

2011-06-08 Thread Jesse Rosenthal
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:46:57 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: Did you guys try to address the issue of tag removal at all? I've been trying to decide if this is something we need to worry about or not. For instance, if cworth pushed a tag .needs-review, you would

tag sharing [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux]

2011-06-06 Thread Jesse Rosenthal
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:28:13 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > I've been thinking about this more and it really seems we need a way to > just share tags. What if we had a way to export all the tags for a set > of messages as a notmuch dump file, that could just be piped into > notmuch to

tag sharing [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux]

2011-06-06 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:17:27 -0700, Carl Worth wrote: > Hopefully, someone will provide me with a good way to publish my queue > soon, ("notmuch search --output=html" ?), and then communication like > this will be a bit easier. ;-) I've been thinking about this more and it really seems we need a

Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux

2011-06-06 Thread Carl Worth
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:35:40 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:27:42 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote: From a quick rebase of your release-candidate branch and a comparison with what I have queued it looks like only the following

tag sharing [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux]

2011-06-06 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:17:27 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote: Hopefully, someone will provide me with a good way to publish my queue soon, (notmuch search --output=html ?), and then communication like this will be a bit easier. ;-) I've been thinking about this more and it really

Re: tag sharing [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux]

2011-06-06 Thread Jesse Rosenthal
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:28:13 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: I've been thinking about this more and it really seems we need a way to just share tags. What if we had a way to export all the tags for a set of messages as a notmuch dump file, that could just be

Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux

2011-06-05 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:27:42 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote: From a quick rebase of your release-candidate branch and a comparison with what I have queued it looks like only the following commits are left on your branch and not in my email queue: emacs: update

Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux

2011-05-31 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
Hi, folks. I have pushed a new version of the release-candidate/0.6 branch to my repo [0]. It is all reworked on top of notmuch/master [1], and includes: * the miscellaneous fixes/improvements patch series starting at id:1306619520-25730-2-git-send-email-jroll...@finestructure.net * the

Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux

2011-05-28 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:51:35 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: So what follows is a patch series for a bunch of miscellaneous patches that should be included in 0.6. Most of them were originally part of the release-candiate/0.6 branch, and they are here rebased on

Re: release-candidate/0.6 redux

2011-05-28 Thread Austin Clements
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: Austin: speaking of which, would you mind rebasing that patch series against notmuch/master at cb8418784c21155ffea79cce8409a7ea3c546937 and sending that to the list again?  That might help push Carl to

MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-17 Thread Carl Worth
On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:59:51 -0700, Carl Worth wrote: > So what I'd love to see from here is a commit with a description like > the above, and then a test case looking like your example. > > From there, I'd next like a new version of the commit that gets the > intended behavior with less code

MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-17 Thread Simon Hürlimann
lol, made my day! Simon On 05/16/2011 11:05 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On 05/16/2011 04:50 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> So a message like this: >> >> A???multipart/signed 355339 bytes >> B ???multipart/mixed 353462 bytes >> C ???text/plain 235 bytes >> D ???image/jpeg attachment

Re: MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-17 Thread Carl Worth
On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:59:51 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote: So what I'd love to see from here is a commit with a description like the above, and then a test case looking like your example. From there, I'd next like a new version of the commit that gets the intended behavior with

MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Carl Worth
On Mon, 16 May 2011 15:37:49 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > See mml-secure-message-sign-pgpmime to sign an entire message, as > opposed to just a single part. Thanks! That's good to know. (Trying here.) > I think the two paths reconverge later in the series. Can you look > ahead a bit

MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 05/16/2011 05:20 PM, Carl Worth wrote: > Interestingly, this is not quite the behavior I get (with commit > 373f352). With --format=text I'm now seeing: > > 2) C > 3) D > 4) E --format=text should only show the parts that are readable in text. the ultimate goal is to get the part numbers

MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 05/16/2011 04:50 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > So a message like this: > > A???multipart/signed 355339 bytes > B ???multipart/mixed 353462 bytes > C ???text/plain 235 bytes > D ???image/jpeg attachment [foo.jpg] 352752 bytes > E ??application/pgp-signature attachment [signature.asc] 1030

MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 05/16/2011 04:42 PM, Carl Worth wrote: > Meanwhile, I still can't tell exactly what the behavioral change > intended is. The commit message talks about "fully recursing" > and "match[ing] the MIME structure of the message". Was it not > fully recursing before? In what

MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Mon, 16 May 2011 14:20:07 -0700, Carl Worth wrote: > I'll have to learn better how to control the emacs mail composer in > order to understand how to get signatures to cover attachments if I want > to do that kind of thing. See mml-secure-message-sign-pgpmime to sign an entire message, as

MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Carl Worth
On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:50:06 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > So a message like this: > > A???multipart/signed 355339 bytes > B ???multipart/mixed 353462 bytes > C ???text/plain 235 bytes > D ???image/jpeg attachment [foo.jpg] 352752 bytes > E ??application/pgp-signature attachment

MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Carl Worth
On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:50:06 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > before, the output was a linearized version of the mime tree, in > particular removing the multipart pieces and only enumerating the leaves > in a depth-first walk of the tree. > > So a message like this: [snip example of change]

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-16 Thread Carl Worth
On Fri, 13 May 2011 01:07:08 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: Hi, Carl. I went through dme's multipart patch series and cleaned things up. ... The result is the new release-candidate/0.6+mpmfix Thanks so much! This looks much better than before. I'm still

MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 05/16/2011 04:42 PM, Carl Worth wrote: Meanwhile, I still can't tell exactly what the behavioral change intended is. The commit message talks about fully recursing and match[ing] the MIME structure of the message. Was it not fully recursing before? In what way did

Re: MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Carl Worth
On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:50:06 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote: before, the output was a linearized version of the mime tree, in particular removing the multipart pieces and only enumerating the leaves in a depth-first walk of the tree. So a message like this: [snip

Re: MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 05/16/2011 04:50 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: So a message like this: A└┬╴multipart/signed 355339 bytes B ├┬╴multipart/mixed 353462 bytes C │├╴text/plain 235 bytes D │└╴image/jpeg attachment [foo.jpg] 352752 bytes E └╴application/pgp-signature attachment [signature.asc] 1030 bytes

Re: MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Carl Worth
On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:50:06 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote: So a message like this: A└┬╴multipart/signed 355339 bytes B ├┬╴multipart/mixed 353462 bytes C │├╴text/plain 235 bytes D │└╴image/jpeg attachment [foo.jpg] 352752 bytes E └╴application/pgp-signature

Re: MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Simon Hürlimann
lol, made my day! Simon On 05/16/2011 11:05 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: On 05/16/2011 04:50 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: So a message like this: A└┬╴multipart/signed 355339 bytes B ├┬╴multipart/mixed 353462 bytes C │├╴text/plain 235 bytes D │└╴image/jpeg attachment [foo.jpg] 352752 bytes

Re: MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 05/16/2011 05:20 PM, Carl Worth wrote: Interestingly, this is not quite the behavior I get (with commit 373f352). With --format=text I'm now seeing: 2) C 3) D 4) E --format=text should only show the parts that are readable in text. the ultimate goal is to get the part numbers aligned

Re: MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Mon, 16 May 2011 14:20:07 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote: I'll have to learn better how to control the emacs mail composer in order to understand how to get signatures to cover attachments if I want to do that kind of thing. See mml-secure-message-sign-pgpmime to sign an entire

Re: MIME restructuring [was: Re: release-candidate/0.6]

2011-05-16 Thread Carl Worth
On Mon, 16 May 2011 15:37:49 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: See mml-secure-message-sign-pgpmime to sign an entire message, as opposed to just a single part. Thanks! That's good to know. (Trying here.) I think the two paths reconverge later in the series. Can

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-13 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:36:43 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote: Does anyone want to attempt to fix up this first patch? (It doesn't necessarily have to be David). Hi, Carl. I went through dme's multipart patch series and cleaned things up. I split up that first commit into a couple of

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-12 Thread Pieter Praet
On Tue, 10 May 2011 09:42:39 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: Arg. One last bit of churn. dkg found a bug in the new sanitize_string function that was causing segfaults on messages with empty headers. This is obviously an imprtant thing to fix. After

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-12 Thread Austin Clements
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote: The atomicity tests were failing here because I didn't have GDB installed, so I've added it as a prereq. Sorry, I've had a patch to address that sitting around, but hadn't sent it out (and I only fixed that one test). I

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-12 Thread Pieter Praet
On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:18:48 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote: The atomicity tests were failing here because I didn't have GDB installed, so I've added it as a prereq. Sorry, I've had a patch to address that

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-12 Thread Austin Clements
Nifty. I was afraid to go romping through all of the other test dependencies; I'm glad somebody wasn't. ]:--8) It should be noted that these patches depend on id:1305206110-17511-1-git-send-email-amdra...@mit.edu for correctness and id:1305206080-17461-1-git-send-email-amdra...@mit.edu for

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-10 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Mon, 09 May 2011 10:20:18 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: ***I hereby declare that release-candidate/0.6 is ready for release.*** After all of that pomp, I take it all back! Fully fearful of further delaying release of 0.6, I decided I wanted to slip in a

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-10 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
Arg. One last bit of churn. dkg found a bug in the new sanitize_string function that was causing segfaults on messages with empty headers. This is obviously an imprtant thing to fix. After chatting with some folks on #notmuch, we decided that the debian build dependency on libgmime 2.4.24 is a

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-09 Thread micah anderson
On Fri, 06 May 2011 12:46:34 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: I might try to add a couple of more things before declaring the candidate release-ready, but this is more-or-less it. Please start using this branch in production as much as possible, so that we can

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-09 Thread James Vasile
On Sun, 08 May 2011 17:57:48 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: On Fri, 06 May 2011 19:56:30 -0400, James Vasile ja...@hackervisions.org wrote: I sent two patches to the list on March 16. They were a bug fix to allow notmuch to correctly handle some poorly

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-09 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
Hi, folks. I have pushed a couple of more patches to release-candidate/0.6 [0]: * Dmitry's fix for emacs fcc * Anton Khirnov's memleak fixes I think that everything else can wait for later releases. ***I hereby declare that release-candidate/0.6 is ready for release.*** I think the only

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-08 Thread Florian Friesdorf
On Sat, 07 May 2011 01:51:25 +0200, Florian Friesdorf f...@chaoflow.net wrote: (..) An open issue (also with gmime 2.4.24) is the extraction of a PDF from an encrypted message via emacs (discussed on irc before, mentioned here for completeness of the In the current release candidate this got

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-08 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Fri, 06 May 2011 19:56:30 -0400, James Vasile ja...@hackervisions.org wrote: I sent two patches to the list on March 16. They were a bug fix to allow notmuch to correctly handle some poorly formatted email. Nobody ever replied, but I'd like to see the bug fixed nonetheless, as it results

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-08 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
Hi, folks. I've pushed some more patches to the release-candidate/0.6 branch [0] (which should now be at commit id 89ca01b6104dd732903104e50777a7b4a211e1f4): * support for decryption of parts with notmuch show --format=part * emacs support for retrieving parts (like attachments) from encrypted

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-08 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 05/08/2011 09:03 PM, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: Hi, folks. I've pushed some more patches to the release-candidate/0.6 branch [0] (which should now be at commit id 89ca01b6104dd732903104e50777a7b4a211e1f4): * support for decryption of parts with notmuch show --format=part * emacs

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-08 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Sun, 08 May 2011 21:24:52 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote: One new feature that you didn't mention is that --decrypt is passed through to notmuch reply based on the state of the current buffer. That is: it used to be that you had to remember whether you'd viewed a

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-07 Thread Darren McGuicken
On Fri, 06 May 2011 12:46:34 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: However, the current version of libgmime-2.4 in testing and unstable (2.4.23-1) unfortunately breaks signature verification, which means that many of the crypto tests will fail. The issue has been

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-07 Thread Dmitry Kurochkin
Hi Jameson. First of all, thank you for your effort on notmuch. It is a great project and I am happy to see it going forward (again)! Can we include FCC fix in the 0.6 please? It was broken in 0.5 (IIRC) because of old configuration check. There are two patches on the ML to address it. The

Re: release-candidate/0.6

2011-05-06 Thread Sebastian Spaeth
On Fri, 06 May 2011 12:46:34 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: I might try to add a couple of more things before declaring the candidate release-ready, but this is more-or-less it. Please start using this branch in production as much as possible, so that we can