From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>
To: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] test: sanitize dates in emacs, raw, and text output
In-Reply-To: <20131209002519.GH8854@mit.edu>
References: <1386517946-22054-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net>
	<1386517946-22054-4-git-send-email-david@tethera.net>
	<20131209002519.GH8854@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17~rc3 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 09:17:41 +0800
Message-ID: <87ob4qlt56.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> writes:

> This may be orthogonal to this series, but I don't get why we have
> both notmuch_show_sanitize and notmuch_show_sanitize_all (especially
> when the "all" version is not obviously a superset of the non-"all"
> version!)  Do you have a sense for whether these two functions could
> be easily merged?

Yeah, I don't really understand the reason for these two functions
either. I also discovered (and deleted) another duplicate file name
sanitization function elsewhere in the series, so it wouldn't surprise
me if it's just collective sloppiness.

>
> Rather than (nearly) duplicating the regexp, does it work to pipe this
> through notmuch_date_sanitize?  Or do the minor differences matter?
>

I'll try this out.

d