From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE6B431FB6 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:15:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iCKzJsVfrPFf for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:15:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8739431FAE for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:15:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (lair.fifthhorseman.net [108.58.6.98]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0469BF98B for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:15:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A9B5C209BE; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:27:19 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: notmuch mailing list Subject: emacs compatibility? User-Agent: Notmuch/0.16 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:27:18 -0500 Message-ID: <87eh649npl.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 03:15:22 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable i notice that in the current master, debian/notmuch-emacs.README.Debian contains the following stanza: =2D----------- * This package currently works only with emacs 23. Users of=20 pre-release snapshots of emacs 24 can expect problems. =2D----------- I'm using notmuch (and notmuch-emacs) 0.16 with emacs24, and i don't think i'm seeing any such problems. But maybe i'm just lucky and/or conservative and don't happen to tickle any of the incompatibilities? Or is the above README (which is dated from 2011) stale? If so, as a user i'd appreciate an update that reflect the current expectations of the notmuch development community about which versions of emacs are considered well-supported for the upcoming 0.17 release. --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJSk8C3XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQjk2OTEyODdBN0FEREUzNzU3RDkxMUVB NTI0MDFCMTFCRkRGQTVDAAoJEKUkAbEb/fpcLCYQAK40fQy4IkW4zl6ZK/aDmquG 5spngXK+0ZaklNIPgqP5N/IG7gEcIcj5CJxsqFJwEC4SEUoRA6Cy2cxwXlLs+peS qbjSal/12e5A6qQt78tgx62HkM9aywnYWmxK70uhg49uphSxZeIwmvuMlQEcPNZw CRgWmdMNN4rmDGpRSjWtOpTTdeVBDkb656XlTsUSqTAl3aLGbfu9/yZf7CzeQjs0 t6xu6T/G6GwKP3ZjhDSmxr2VetuTVYUk6te9Plqa3KvJhVBCxr9JSX5TAv6exJWM Zf2smp9yvuW4KEnxg3LEf75d97eTCO7XxtpiDu442K4WIBfB6LvyAJiNq0eYw659 0FNecgoGTLk522QpoOz4Fs935bile9InxYZjTzfbHaBxhawiid6qOy9tFaXzIZud XvE19v9AEw0D68e+RzM866PlmAgngUi7TFyRjIfAaGO/RDQNt9BG+KFwfBeNvc1i ZCxenAwBNmloEeTfArqXHWZ/VQOvQ8J53y5Z8GugDsKh1v+vZ0JOARNxt9ueC0OH n+mWzvaFAdrnus9vFQxmTmZMc8i/3whRWSeDdXWtAlW+qHO/tSTaSZk9qCCmj8t1 MQm30dC3A4/PTcqqFpVmXED3xFAk8b8DE1ZFZ/VjwABFepa5E3XU8sZ2dgoCVnR8 /+HWjJmxKoZc4pE4y2CF =Ryww -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--