> > Noone objected - does that mean that the code will be removed in the next
> > release? If no, what do I have to do so that it will be removed?
>
> I'll throw in my objection then. You're proposing something like this??
Yes.
> I think mutt should restore the a/m times.
Hm, and why do you think so? See below for my reasoning.
Luke wrote:
> As I touched upon before, I'll be unhappy if it breaks my bash new mail
> notification.
Hm, but I think if bash is really doing it this way, bash is broken.
> I don't see what the big issue is - sure it didn't work for you, but it
> doesn't seem to have upset many other people here.
The big issue is that the behavior of mutt breaks backup and syncronization
programs. I think that is worse than this gadget of bash (btw, try zsh :-)
Besides its all but logical that the modification time is not updated
when a file is modified. After all that's what "modification" means, right?
Any other opinions?
Thanks,
Andy.
--
Dr. Andy Spiegl, Radio Marañón, Jaén, Perú
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://spiegl.de, http://radiomaranon.org.pe
PGP/GPG: see headers
o _ _ _
--------- __o __o /\_ _ \\o (_)\__/o (_)
------- _`\<,_ _`\<,_ _>(_) (_)/<_ \_| \ _|/' \/
------ (_)/ (_) (_)/ (_) (_) (_) (_) (_)' _\o_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No spam today, my love has gone away, the mailbox stands forlorn, a symbol
of the gone. No spam today, it seems a common sight, the people passing by,
don't know the reason why. How could they know, just what this message means,
the end of my hopes, the end of my dreams... (Peter Berlich in daa)
