Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:45:16 -0500
From: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
To: Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Second step of 'show' rewrite
Message-ID: <20120118204516.GH16740@mit.edu>
References: <1326918507-28033-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>
	<87r4yw7nqe.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87r4yw7nqe.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jan 19 at 12:35 am:
> Hi Austin.
> 
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:28:24 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> > This adds support for self-recursive message formatters, while
> > maintaining backwards compatibility with old style formatters.  After
> > this, each format can be converted to the new style individually and,
> > once they're all converted, a bunch of code can be deleted.
> > 
> > These three patches are independent and can be pushed in any order.  I
> > put them in a series because pushing them before any formatter
> > rewrites will simplify dependencies between the individual formatter
> > rewrites.
> > 
> 
> Thank you for the patches.  Sorry, I did not manage to review your
> previous RFC series [1] yet (but it is on my TODO list).  These patches
> are partially the same as in the RFC series.  I suppose I should start
> with reviewing these new series first, right?  Does it still makes sense
> to review the RFC series after that?

No worries.  Reviewing these first would be best.  These patches are
very similar to the first few in the RFC series (maybe identical?  I
forget), so there's no point in reviewing those after these.  However,
the RFC series goes on to restructure the text formatter and I would
love to have someone skim over those before I send that part out for
real.

> Regards,
>   Dmitry
> 
> [1] id:"1326332973-30225-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu"