1 Return-Path: <kaz.rag@gmail.com>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C86431FD0
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:07:21 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
8 X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Date"
\r
10 X-Spam-Score: -0.367
\r
12 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
13 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
\r
14 FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, INVALID_DATE=0.432, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7]
\r
16 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
17 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
18 with ESMTP id TR65sSMoy-TT for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
19 Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:07:20 -0800 (PST)
\r
20 Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com (mail-qy0-f181.google.com
\r
21 [209.85.216.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
\r
22 (No client certificate requested)
\r
23 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1339431FB6
\r
24 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:07:20 -0800 (PST)
\r
25 Received: by qcha6 with SMTP id a6so11090014qch.26
\r
26 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:07:20 -0800 (PST)
\r
27 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
\r
28 h=content-type:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:from:to
\r
29 :references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:date;
\r
30 bh=/oojh9RnGEdvpd5r/WPstPbhEzE2wHjgUlykd2L4+xE=;
\r
31 b=AfTKyY4vzFIhjieq/ogEUFSvKzPLs9jrqETzCyriTbpp3I4gTG7nRf/h1XeBpV1OrD
\r
32 7rUlBY7advhfXAJ3P4+hOiDIE4EUHKvp//fmJ6NS6Ea+gfmVnrVj/m/lN37oWRLHxk/m
\r
33 qI89xa9VeowaUaHF8VKgGpRXubniwEVgzEJoI=
\r
34 Received: by 10.229.76.142 with SMTP id c14mr15081880qck.132.1325300840026;
\r
35 Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:07:20 -0800 (PST)
\r
36 Received: from localhost (201-1-35-143.dsl.telesp.net.br. [201.1.35.143])
\r
37 by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fe5sm50863465qab.5.2011.12.30.19.07.18
\r
38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
\r
39 Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:07:19 -0800 (PST)
\r
40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
\r
42 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
\r
43 From: Kazuo Teramoto <kaz.rag@gmail.com>
\r
44 To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
45 References: <877h1e6r9d.fsf@zancas.localnet>
\r
46 <1325282290-29565-1-git-send-email-kaz.rag@gmail.com>
\r
47 <1325282290-29565-2-git-send-email-kaz.rag@gmail.com>
\r
48 <87k45d5u0w.fsf@zancas.localnet>
\r
49 In-Reply-To: <87k45d5u0w.fsf@zancas.localnet>
\r
50 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:07:16 -0000
\r
51 Message-ID: <20111231030716.792.79379@sophie>
\r
52 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: Remove unnecessary checks when calling
\r
54 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:07:16 -0200
\r
55 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
56 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
58 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
59 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
60 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
61 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
62 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
63 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
64 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
65 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
66 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
67 X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:07:21 -0000
\r
69 On 2011-12-31T00:55:59, David Bremner wrote:
\r
71 >On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:58:09 -0200, Kazuo Teramoto <kaz.rag@gmail.com> wro=
\r
73 >> g_mime_init already check for multiple initializations.
\r
75 >> lib/index.cc | 4 ----
\r
76 >> lib/message-file.c | 4 ----
\r
77 >> 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
\r
79 >Is this needed to fix the bug? It seems less futureproof to rely on
\r
80 >gmime to check for double initialization if we don't have to.
\r
83 No its not. But if you decide to push only the other part we probably
\r
84 need to add the initialization check to it, for consistency. I can send
\r
85 another patch, would you like it?
\r