On Tuesday, 2019-11-26 at 16:25:29 -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Tue 26 Nov 2019 at 10:52PM +00, David Edmondson wrote:
>
>> The poor behaviour is just a side effect of the way that queries are
>> composed to implement the filter functionality. Does the attached patch
>>
On Tuesday, 2019-11-26 at 14:57:28 -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Tue 26 Nov 2019 at 08:05PM +00, David Edmondson wrote:
>
>> Could you explain how you were using `notmuch-show-thread-id' in a way
>> that was broken by the presence of an arbitrary query?
>
> I've
On Thursday, 2019-11-21 at 14:37:44 -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
> The function `org-notmuch-follow-link' in {org,ol}-notmuch.el calls
> `notmuch-show' with an arbitrary notmuch search query. However, the
> docstring for `notmuch-show' specifies that a notmuch thread ID, rather
> than an arbitrary no
On Wed, Oct 29 2014, David Belohrad wrote:
> - 'standard' behaviour is, that the email sent becomes read-only so with
> 'q' keystroke I can bury the buffer with the email. However when I
> have implemented this, I have noticed that when I 'confirm' the
> template, I go back into the buffer 's
On Fri, Oct 24 2014, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
> David Belohrad writes:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> i'm using org. And I'm using notmuch (that's why I address both mailing
>> lists). Now, writing an email in everyday bussiness requires a
>> non-significant time of your workhours. So I'd like to have this ev
* carsten.domi...@gmail.com [2011-06-10 Fri 09:20]
> Hi, I need a few testers: Something very strange is going on here.
>
> When I evaluate this form
>
> (decode-time (days-to-time (time-to-days (current-time
>
> I get a date in the year 3980. I think this used to work.
> Is there anyone who
