On Friday, 17 July 2009 at 17:58, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Rocco Rutte wrote: [Fri Jul 17 2009, 01:45:52PM EDT]
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 08:25:46PM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > > Sorry. It's applied now.
> >
> > I'm not really sure, but maybe this deserves an entry in UPDATING?
>
> Sure, does
Rocco Rutte wrote: [Fri Jul 17 2009, 01:45:52PM EDT]
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 08:25:46PM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > Sorry. It's applied now.
>
> I'm not really sure, but maybe this deserves an entry in UPDATING?
Sure, does this suffice?
# HG changeset patch
# User Aron Griffis
# Date 124
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 08:25:46PM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> Sorry. It's applied now.
I'm not really sure, but maybe this deserves an entry in UPDATING?
Rocco
Brendan Cully wrote: [Tue Jul 14 2009, 11:25:46PM EDT]
> On Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 17:51, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm really wondering why this bug and patch are being ignored.
> > Could somebody comment?
>
> Sorry. It's applied now.
Thanks Brendan!
On Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 17:51, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm really wondering why this bug and patch are being ignored.
> Could somebody comment?
Sorry. It's applied now.
> Thanks,
> Aron
>
> Aron Griffis wrote: [Wed Jun 17 2009, 03:18:36PM EDT]
> > I posted this patch in July 200
Hi all,
I'm really wondering why this bug and patch are being ignored.
Could somebody comment?
Thanks,
Aron
Aron Griffis wrote: [Wed Jun 17 2009, 03:18:36PM EDT]
> I posted this patch in July 2008. It was generally well-received,
> ending with pdmef's comment:
>
> > If either way isn't documen
I posted this patch in July 2008. It was generally well-received,
ending with pdmef's comment:
> If either way isn't documented (e.g. hooks do/don't work in batch mode)
> IMHO it can be seen as a bug that needs to be fixed. When it possibly
> breaks setups, we add a note to UPDATING.
I pinged
Rocco Rutte wrote: [Fri Aug 15 2008, 04:21:41AM EDT]
> * Kyle Wheeler wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 13 at 12:27 AM, quoth Brendan Cully:
>
>>> This patch makes me uneasy (especially during a freeze), but I'm
>>> willing to apply it if no one else objects. I don't see what kind of
>>> damage
Rocco Rutte wrote: [Fri Aug 15 2008, 04:21:41AM EDT]
> If either way isn't documented (e.g. hooks do/don't work in
> batch mode) IMHO it can be seen as a bug that needs to be
> fixed. When it possibly breaks setups, we add a note to
> UPDATING.
Quick search of the manual
http://www.mutt.org/doc
Hi,
* Kyle Wheeler wrote:
On Wednesday, August 13 at 12:27 AM, quoth Brendan Cully:
This patch makes me uneasy (especially during a freeze), but I'm
willing to apply it if no one else objects. I don't see what kind of
damage a hook might do in batch mode, but I can't convince myself that
Hi,
* Brendan Cully wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 11:28, Aron Griffis wrote:
IMHO mutt should ditch the stable/devel concept and make releases
similar to kernel.org. We're never going to fix all the
outstanding bugs for 1.6, so we should release it *now*. Make
I am also quite fr
* Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-14 19:13 -0400]:
> that we have mercurial now. What's the point of unstable
> releases when it's so easy to fetch and build the tree? Maybe
One point is to get more testers. I have the impression that many
users just use their distro's version which is
Brendan Cully wrote: [Thu Aug 14 2008, 06:12:36PM EDT]
> On Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 11:28, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > IMHO mutt should ditch the stable/devel concept and make releases
> > similar to kernel.org. We're never going to fix all the
> > outstanding bugs for 1.6, so we should release
On Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 11:28, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Kyle Wheeler wrote: [Wed Aug 13 2008, 10:52:29AM EDT]
> > Well, I imagine anyone currently using mutt in batch mode on a regular
> > basis (e.g. with cron) already has a working setup, and enabling hooks
> > by default has the potent
> IMHO mutt should ditch the stable/devel concept and make releases
> similar to kernel.org. We're never going to fix all the
> outstanding bugs for 1.6, so we should release it *now*. Make
> point releases (1.6.1 etc) to fix Really Bad Bugs, but otherwise
> concentrate on 1.7. To simplify from
Kyle Wheeler wrote: [Wed Aug 13 2008, 10:52:29AM EDT]
> Well, I imagine anyone currently using mutt in batch mode on a regular
> basis (e.g. with cron) already has a working setup, and enabling hooks
> by default has the potential at least to break those setups.
Well... this *is* mutt-1.5.x,
On Wednesday, August 13 at 12:27 AM, quoth Brendan Cully:
This patch makes me uneasy (especially during a freeze), but I'm
willing to apply it if no one else objects. I don't see what kind of
damage a hook might do in batch mode, but I can't convince myself that
it's harmless either.
Well, I
This patch makes me uneasy (especially during a freeze), but I'm
willing to apply it if no one else objects. I don't see what kind of
damage a hook might do in batch mode, but I can't convince myself that
it's harmless either.
On Tuesday, 22 July 2008 at 19:13, Aron Griffis wrote:
> I realized imm
I realized immediately after I sent that patch what the point was
of pre-testing Editor. I thought it was protecting the strcmp
but actually it was making sure Editor was set to something. So
here is the same patch without that change.
Thanks,
Aron
# HG changeset patch
# User Aron Griffis <[EMA
19 matches
Mail list logo
