Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF0B429E21 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:49:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lkTyF1Ez+eZY for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:49:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from taco2.nixu.fi (taco2.nixu.fi [194.197.118.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBA45431FD0 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:49:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from taco2.nixu.fi (taco2.nixu.fi [194.197.118.31]) by taco2.nixu.fi (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id pAGHnXZL008867; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:49:33 +0200 From: Tomi Ollila To: Jameson Graef Rollins , Tomi Ollila , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] nmbug help w/o perldoc In-Reply-To: <87wrb07yjg.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> References: <87wrb07yjg.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9+73~ged20210 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Face: HhBM'cA~ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:49:49 -0000 On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:44:03 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:11:16 +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote: > > > > --- > > Hey, Tomi. Your '---' separator is in the wrong place! You wrote this > nice long log message, but it won't be attached to the commit because > it's below the body separator. That was intentional. But, now that I think of it -- although that is RFC patch, and not intented to be committed as such, I should have written a little better commit message -- for people who actually commit these messages before review. > > jamie. Tomi