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 B07FF431FBC for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 18:12:27 -0700 (PDT) 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 IrnSBNUaUR3n for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 18:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yantan.tethera.net (yantan.tethera.net [199.188.72.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E852431FB6 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 18:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by yantan.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V14ff-0001Bq-W5; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:12:15 -0300 Received: (nullmailer pid 330 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:12:11 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Mark Walters , Tomi Ollila , notmuch mailing list Subject: Re: second freeze for 0.16, now with more freezieness In-Reply-To: <87txjnegxr.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> References: <87ip0rj7vn.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87ip05e73v.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87txjnegxr.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+224~g1fd1e57 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:12:11 -0300 Message-ID: <87fvv7wg7o.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:12:27 -0000 Mark Walters writes: > > What about adding > id:1372976299-30389-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com to the > release branch (but not trunk). Then whatever correct fix we decide on > can go in later and we avoid a potential string of bug reports from > 0.16? > I haven't followed that discussion very closely, but I should mention it's really not a problem to roll a bug fix release with one more commit if we need more time to figure that out. d