Return-Path: <prvs=jrosenthal=7218428b9@jhu.edu>
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 011A94196F3
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 u6Ve1vJrl0Sr for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
	Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipex3.johnshopkins.edu (ipex3.johnshopkins.edu
	[128.220.161.140])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5FC431FC1
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,257,1270440000"; d="scan'208";a="378222304"
Received: from c-69-255-36-229.hsd1.md.comcast.net (HELO lucky)
	([69.255.36.229])
	by ipex3.johnshopkins.edu with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA;
	22 Apr 2010 10:21:12 -0400
Received: from jkr by lucky with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <jrosenthal@jhu.edu>)
	id 1O4xHD-00065P-Cd; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:21:11 -0400
From: Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu>
To: cworth@cworth.org, Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian@SSpaeth.de>,
	Notmuch development list <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Subject: Re: sort order regression
In-Reply-To: <87wrvz7ex3.fsf@jhu.edu>
References: <87bpdbmvj0.fsf@SSpaeth.de> <87wrvz7ex3.fsf@jhu.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:21:11 -0400
Message-ID: <87vdbj7elk.fsf@jhu.edu>
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."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:21:14 -0000

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:14:16 -0400, Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu> wrote:
> Just to follow up on this, it seems that the regression comes from the
> fix Carl introduced in 2a1a4f0551 to make his simplification of my patch
> (simplification = 36e4459a3 , my patch = 4971b85641) pass tests. The
> question is whether my original, more complicated version would have
> passed the tests without the regressing fix.

Okay, I just tested using the current test suite: my patch (4971b85641)
passes all tests, while Carl's simplification fails.

My suggestion would be to revert both the simplification and the fix to
enable the simplification to pass: (36e4459a3, 2a1a4f0551).

Should we send reverts as patches?

Best,
Jesse