Patches for 0.12

Patches for 0.12

[David Bremner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1277 bytes --]


As usual, nothing brings out the bug reports like a freeze.

There are some patches that should probably go in, but could use one
more pair of eyes.

  id:"1330849538-24558-1-git-send-email-jani@nikula.org"

We had a somewhat lively debate about desirablity of the following
patch. My decision is that for now, we avoid changing the behaviour of
notmuch, and do apply the patch. We can discuss later deprecating or
changing this permissive behaviour. 

   id:"1331385931-1610-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net"

This patch from Austin seems innocent enough, and I plan to push it to
release.
 
   id:"1331058417-13776-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu"

I'm not sure about including

  id:"1329852935-3019-1-git-send-email-schnouki@schnouki.net"

it wouldn't really help debian (as the unstable buildds already have
2.6.6), but I guess it might help others building debian packages.

Although

    id:"1331225101-24385-1-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net"

is marked as trivial and is certainly short, I'd like one more pair of
eyes before pushing to release.

As I mentioned to Pieter in another mail, my current plan is _not_
to push the various testing patches to release, on the grounds that they
mainly help developers.

d

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 315 bytes --]

Re: anecdotical evidence: number mbox files in my maildirs

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On 03/14/2012 05:45 PM, Gregor Zattler wrote:
> Hi David, notmuch developers,
> * David Bremner<david@tethera.net>  [10. Mar. 2012]:
>> We had a somewhat lively debate about desirablity of the following
>> patch. My decision is that for now, we avoid changing the behaviour of
>> notmuch, and do apply the patch. We can discuss later deprecating or
>> changing this permissive behaviour.
>>
>>     id:"1331385931-1610-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net"
>
> I'm in favour of this patch since I have more than 294 967 mbox
> files with one email each in my maildir hierarchy.  I guess it
> has something to do with my procmail scripts.  Perhaps this also
> happens to other users.

Fortunately, since the release of gmime 2.6.7, gmime is lenient enough 
to parse these files.  So i don't think we need the patch, we just need 
to make sure we build against the appropriate version of gmime if using 
gmime 2.6.

Regards,

	--dkg

anecdotical evidence: number mbox files in my maildirs (was: Re: Patches for 0.12)

[Gregor Zattler]

Hi David, notmuch developers,
* David Bremner <david@tethera.net> [10. Mar. 2012]:
> We had a somewhat lively debate about desirablity of the following
> patch. My decision is that for now, we avoid changing the behaviour of
> notmuch, and do apply the patch. We can discuss later deprecating or
> changing this permissive behaviour. 
> 
>    id:"1331385931-1610-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net"

I'm in favour of this patch since I have more than 294 967 mbox
files with one email each in my maildir hierarchy.  I guess it
has something to do with my procmail scripts.  Perhaps this also
happens to other users.

I did not have the time to hunt down the bug in my procmail setup.

Actually I only checked for files with a first "From " line
because of the discussion on this mailing list.



Ciao, Gregor
-- 
 -... --- .-. . -.. ..--.. ...-.-

Re: Patches for 0.12

[Austin Clements]

Quoth David Bremner on Mar 10 at 10:09 am:
> 
> As usual, nothing brings out the bug reports like a freeze.
> 
> There are some patches that should probably go in, but could use one
> more pair of eyes.
> 
>   id:"1330849538-24558-1-git-send-email-jani@nikula.org"

I looked at this and just sent a question to Jani
  id:"87k42momyi.fsf@awakening.csail.mit.edu"
If the answer is that it's okay, then consider my eyes one more pair.

> We had a somewhat lively debate about desirablity of the following
> patch. My decision is that for now, we avoid changing the behaviour of
> notmuch, and do apply the patch. We can discuss later deprecating or
> changing this permissive behaviour. 
> 
>    id:"1331385931-1610-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net"

Alternatively, can we just require GMime 2.6.7 by applying
  id:"1331515786-485-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net"
instead of
  id:"1331385931-1610-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net"
and
  id:"1329852935-3019-1-git-send-email-schnouki@schnouki.net"
?

> This patch from Austin seems innocent enough, and I plan to push it to
> release.
>  
>    id:"1331058417-13776-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu"

The worst-case scenario with applying this patch is that notmuch will
verbosely fail to show a message where it would otherwise crash, so
I'd go for it.

> I'm not sure about including
> 
>   id:"1329852935-3019-1-git-send-email-schnouki@schnouki.net"
> 
> it wouldn't really help debian (as the unstable buildds already have
> 2.6.6), but I guess it might help others building debian packages.

(See my comment about 2.6.7 above.)

> Although
> 
>     id:"1331225101-24385-1-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net"
> 
> is marked as trivial and is certainly short, I'd like one more pair of
> eyes before pushing to release.

I approve this patch.

Re: Patches for 0.12

[Jameson Graef Rollins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 912 bytes --]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:16:01 -0400, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> > We had a somewhat lively debate about desirablity of the following
> > patch. My decision is that for now, we avoid changing the behaviour of
> > notmuch, and do apply the patch. We can discuss later deprecating or
> > changing this permissive behaviour. 
> > 
> >    id:"1331385931-1610-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net"
> 
> Alternatively, can we just require GMime 2.6.7 by applying
>   id:"1331515786-485-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net"
> instead of
>   id:"1331385931-1610-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net"
> and
>   id:"1329852935-3019-1-git-send-email-schnouki@schnouki.net"
> ?

I much prefer this solution (i.e. just require GMime 2.6.7 and no
notmuch patches).  I still think we need some sort of coherent approach
for rejecting mbox, but I think it will require a lot more thought.

jamie.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: Patches for 0.12

[Austin Clements]

Quoth myself on Mar 14 at  6:16 pm:
> Quoth David Bremner on Mar 10 at 10:09 am:
> > 
> > As usual, nothing brings out the bug reports like a freeze.
> > 
> > There are some patches that should probably go in, but could use one
> > more pair of eyes.
> > 
> >   id:"1330849538-24558-1-git-send-email-jani@nikula.org"
> 
> I looked at this and just sent a question to Jani
>   id:"87k42momyi.fsf@awakening.csail.mit.edu"
> If the answer is that it's okay, then consider my eyes one more pair.

Jani answered to my satisfaction, so I approve this patch.