* Andy Spiegl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010719 15:08]:
> > > 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.
My reasoning is close to Luke's: to support legacy mail notification
programs. However, I see your point. I wasn't really thinking about
how it affects backups and syncronization. I can see how this can
introduce problems w/ programs like, say, rsync.
I change my vote then. But mutt isn't really a democracy.. ;-)
> 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.
In any case, it's only three lines of code which can be readded by bash
users if they are taken out. ;-)
> > 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?
--
- Matt Dunford <> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..
-. www.zotikos.com -- o,;-
This imperiousness which aids us in all things is merely a fitting
authority which comes from superior spirit.
-- Madame de Sablé
--
