On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:57:26 +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:32:16 +0200, Florian Friesdorf wrote: > > I think it is confusing that it has a different versioning than notmuch > > itself and that it would be more intuitive if the current bindings on > > pypi [1] would have the same version as the current stable release of > > notmuch. > > But that would require that the python bindings are actually updated to > the current API of notmuch :-). Because they currently are not. E.g. the > get_filename/get_filenames addition is still not included. Is it sane to have python bindings that need updates or would a plain wrapper of the notmuch script (that maybe needs less updates) be better? I don't want to imply that this can be answered with yes/no, but more to get a comparison of the two approaches. Naïvely, I imagine there is a header file and the generation of the python bindings happens rather automagic. > > If they would also work with older releases of notmuch, that > > could still be indicated, as it is done now. > > As far as for testing current implementations with older notmuch > libraries, I welcome people to contribute patches to the documentation > because I certainly will not test all combinations :-). > > To be honest, I don't even use the python bindings anymore, not that > notmuch proper is able to give me all I need (especially file names). Point taken, I don't use them yet, I might in the future. -- Florian Friesdorf GPG FPR: 7A13 5EEE 1421 9FC2 108D BAAF 38F8 99A3 0C45 F083 Jabber/XMPP: flo@chaoflow.net IRC: chaoflow on freenode,ircnet,blafasel,OFTC