From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [rmail-mbox-branch]: expunge Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:21:24 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <1096014084.739640.30529.nullmailer@Update.UU.SE> References: <1096006177.432792.29828.nullmailer@Update.UU.SE> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096014240 16653 80.91.229.6 (24 Sep 2004 08:24:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:24:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 24 10:23:45 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CAlMm-0006nt-00 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:23:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAlSr-00041F-9C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:30:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CAlSi-00040k-EX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:29:52 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CAlSg-00040V-OO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:29:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAlSg-000409-GM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:29:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [130.238.4.153] (helo=pernis.its.uu.se) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CAlLj-0002CK-3B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:22:40 -0400 Original-Received: by pernis.its.uu.se (Postfix, from userid 205) id 1871D178EC; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:22:37 +0200 (MSZ) Original-Received: from pernis.its.uu.se(127.0.0.1) by pernis.its.uu.se via virus-scan id s782; Fri, 24 Sep 04 10:21:28 +0200 Original-Received: from Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE (Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE [130.238.19.25]) by pernis.its.uu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2AB177F8; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:21:25 +0200 (MSZ) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEE238012; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Psilocybe [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24360-13; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from Update.UU.SE (Lem.Update.UU.SE [130.238.19.73]) by Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE (Postfix) with SMTP; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: (nullmailer pid 30530 invoked by uid 30270); Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:21:24 -0000 Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) In-reply-to: (storm@cua.dk) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:27530 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:27530 > [I wouldn't recommened merging this back into trunk by a long > shot, it is far to broken] It seems that the new rmail-mbox-branch code is quite far from 'production quality' so IMHO it is not ready for inclusion in 21.4. I'm kinda curious if anyone actually used the rmail-mbox-branch before... I was hoping that it would only contain minor bugs, but it contains some quite serious bugs (eating my mail is serious, not even being able to run it is serious since it means that it hasn't been even tested!). Do we really need to postpone the release of 21.4 just for this one feature? Can't it wait until 22.1 ? To me as a user of rmail, I would really prefer it to wait for 22.1. Right now it is far to broken, if there were more people that could actualy help out and test it and send patches, then just maybe. Even if I said that one shouldn't merge that branch into trunk, maybe that would be one good way to force people who use rmail to actually use it and fix it right now and get it ready for 21.4; but I don't know what the current status of the tree is right now. And anyway, the babyl format has been used for such a long time that postponing this feature until 22.1, 23.1 or even 100.1 won't do any harm anyway. Those are just my opionions as a user of rmail and emacs; feel free to ignore them completely.