1 Return-Path: <bacuh@riseup.net>
\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 0F0D8431FBF
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
\r
13 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
\r
15 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
16 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
17 with ESMTP id FC24r+2I96rU for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
18 Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
\r
19 Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129])
\r
20 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
21 (No client certificate requested)
\r
22 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB87E431FBD
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
\r
24 Received: from fruiteater.riseup.net (fruiteater-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.74])
\r
25 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
26 (Client CN "*.riseup.net",
\r
27 Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA" (not verified))
\r
28 by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1236651B6B;
\r
29 Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
\r
30 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak;
\r
31 t=1404679328; bh=9coxL15bGohwK/5ybyPDb9/lHoXLiO3dIYw2QbNB494=;
\r
32 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:
\r
33 MIME-Version:Content-Type;
\r
34 b=qm86V0NKKMN6gCQdt99Zp3j+Ks/5gA7twWzrySiXkxfS/zCvZU+q67EaQnlTvsIXT
\r
35 GZFSFNnaCnoU/nqdvfnxpMSwneGuxV7pUafMXVM8ujsIt7kIjIaN4ewEvczux3E3q3
\r
36 J6ui/oM34hQYs/ey+v6ib+KHYUheKS8LkUjHF6oA=
\r
37 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
38 (Authenticated sender: bacuh@fruiteater.riseup.net)
\r
39 with ESMTPSA id A833C900
\r
40 From: Sebastian Lipp <bacuh@riseup.net>
\r
41 To: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
\r
42 Subject: Re: [PATCH] emacs: add missing paren to fix defun in
\r
44 In-Reply-To: <87d2djr7o1.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
\r
45 References: <87wqsfik5l.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
\r
46 <87mwtah2hd.fsf@zancas.localnet>
\r
47 <877gkeau42.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
\r
48 <m2ppy5v3mc.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi> <8738v1jtzc.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
49 <87k3odgutd.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87ip3wbj7g.fsf@mcs.anl.gov>
\r
50 <m2hajgxli5.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
\r
51 <87vc7vgbym.fsf@zancas.localnet>
\r
52 <m2ehejykb1.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
\r
53 <87pphmc604.fsf@verb.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
\r
54 <87oax6vt4u.fsf@ktab.red-bean.com>
\r
55 <87r4215vcd.fsf@verb.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
\r
56 <87d2djr7o1.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
\r
57 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1
\r
59 Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 22:41:02 +0200
\r
61 <878uo6dxup.fsf@verb.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
\r
63 Content-Type: text/plain
\r
64 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at mx1
\r
65 X-Virus-Status: Clean
\r
66 Cc: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
67 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
68 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
70 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
71 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
72 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
73 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
74 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
75 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
76 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
77 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
78 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
79 X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 20:42:17 -0000
\r
81 Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
\r
82 > In general, supplying a log message with the patch with avoid such
\r
83 > confusion. If there is some prose expressing what the change is
\r
84 > supposed to to, and giving any historical context (such as the mailing
\r
85 > list thread starting from last year), then it will be easy for any
\r
86 > reviewer to understand what the patch is intended to do, and check if it
\r
87 > actually does that.
\r
89 Okay, next time I will provide that information inline. Thought keeping
\r
90 References and In-Reply-To headers would be sufficient reference.
\r