Hi Xu, On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 05:55:02PM -0400, Xu Wang wrote: > > I would prefer not to use mutt-kz because I do not like using forks in > general. I wouldn't mind rebasing the patches on top of mutt though. > Has anyone had success with this or do they not apply cleanly?
I use mutt-kz for a few years now. If you choose to use it, there is no need to merge with upstream mutt yourself. The mutt-kz repository is synced with the mutt repo when there are enough commits to be synced. In case of security fixes, the merges are done almost immediately. > What are the advantages of using mutt-kz over using notmuch-mutt? Is > the virtual folder workaround of notmuch-mutt annoying? I have not used notmuch-mutt, but mutt-kz can be a bit slow when the virtual folder is very large (say ~10k). But I think that's because of Xapian. Other than that, I love it, I barely have had problems. Being able to search emails from within mutt is really convenient. On top of that, I can access my emails using other applications because of notmuch, e.g. I can link to emails from my notes in Org mode (an Emacs major mode). I also have a few scripts that integrate easy access to emails with my work flow. I also use a notmuch search based addressbook with mutt. I cannot see any of this being possible without the search capability offered by notmuch. > Is the only disadvantage of the virtual folder that changes made to a > message in it are not applied to the actual message? This is not true, unless by changes you mean notmuch tags. In that case, it doesn't make sense since a tag is meta information related to indexing, so it is stored in the notmuch database. Notmuch, as a matter of principle, never modifies the message file other than changing the maildir flags, as appropriate. As far as I have followed notmuch development, this is unlikely to change. Hope this helps, -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free.
