Re: [PATCH 2/2] emacs: Prefer Content-Description over filename for part buttons

[Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>]

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014, "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:34:18PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:15:35PM +0000, 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 existed :p.
>
> Looking at this more, I'm unsure about whether or not I should bump
> the version.  b96ba63 (show: indicate length, encoding of omitted body
> content, 2012-12-16) added part.content-length? and
> part.content-transfer-encoding? and doesn't bump the version, while
> abeac48 (search: Add stable queries to thread search results,
> 2013-10-24) adds thread_summary.query and does bump the version.  From
> notmuch-client.h:
>
>  Backwards-incompatible changes such as removing map fields, changing
>  the meaning of map fields, or changing the meanings of list elements
>  should increase this.  New (required) map fields can be added without
>  increasing this.
>
> I think that the addition of part.content-description? should not bump
> the version, but then I'm not sure how to document the change in
> devel/schemata.  I'm leaning towards something like:

I think you just add the new field to the list of fields in the schemata
in the appropriate place in the part section as

content-description?: string,

and you don't need to bump the version. I think this is because a client
can safely ask for this field regardless of the notmuch version and
won't get confused. 

Best wishes

Mark




>
>   diff --git a/devel/schemata b/devel/schemata
>   index 41dc4a6..63d8aa4 100644
>   --- a/devel/schemata
>   +++ b/devel/schemata
>   @@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ v1
>    v2
>    - Added the thread_summary.query field.
>
>   +Staged for v3
>   +- Added the part.content-descrition? field.
>   +
>    Common non-terminals
>    --------------------
>   …
>
> Alternatively, there could be a minor version that gets bumped on each
> tweak, however insignificant.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Trevor
>
> -- 
> This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
> For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy