Re: address completion when composing

[Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian@SSpaeth.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1555 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:49:50 -0400, Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu> wrote:
> > What about shipping some / all of these with notmuch? It feels that
> > newbies would benefit from this inclusion and more extensive
> > documentation about what to do to get address completion.
> 
> I certainly agree with this. I've done a pretty craptacular job of
> maintaining the python version (just now changed the URL on the wiki,
> though, to be fair to myself, I didn't know it was on the wiki in the
> first place).

So have I with the vala version. I did it to scratch my itch and it has
been working for me ever since. However, I am not very interested in
maintaining or improving this piece of code. So, if the vala version
goes into the repository, I would appreciate if I would not be the
maintainer.
 
> I'd personally argue, not surprisingly, for unifying on the python
> version, if unifying we must, just because the python bindings are much
> more used than vala bindings (and way more people hack on python than
> vala) so it stands a better chance of keeping up with the binary. [...]
> Sebastian might have other opinions, though.

You know that I like python ;). And the python version is certainly more
hackable for me too. The vala version is cool because it is translatable
into pure C and it has some logic for minimizing the number of
lookups. (I think that is now also in the python version). Once the
from/to/cc addresses are stored in xapian itself, we are much less IO
bound than now, I'd think.

Sebastian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]