Re: nmbug in the Debian packages?

diff --git a/76/c10829744aa81282683db06d73d5928013876a b/76/c10829744aa81282683db06d73d5928013876a
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..017a7f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/76/c10829744aa81282683db06d73d5928013876a
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+Return-Path: <david@tethera.net>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119226DE141B\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:16:05 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -0.307\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244,\r
+  RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id ManZFxpW4wZX for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:16:03 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197])\r
+ by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5BC86DE02C9\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:16:02 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84)\r
+ (envelope-from <david@tethera.net>)\r
+ id 1aVfTL-0002lb-VN; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:15:20 -0500\r
+Received: (nullmailer pid 26072 invoked by uid 1000);\r
+ Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:16:00 -0000\r
+From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>\r
+To: "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us>\r
+Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: nmbug in the Debian packages?\r
+In-Reply-To: <20160213220250.GB4265@odin.tremily.us>\r
+References: <cun37t5r91p.fsf@disaster-area.hh.sledj.net>\r
+ <87twlj8mix.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> <20160208193804.GE4265@odin.tremily.us>\r
+ <87lh6o79vb.fsf@zancas.localnet> <20160213220250.GB4265@odin.tremily.us>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+26~g9404723 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:16:00 -0400\r
+Message-ID: <87h9h8vlrj.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:16:05 -0000\r
+\r
+"W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> writes:\r
+\r
+>\r
+> I'd floated notmuch-dtag earlier [1].  Does that sound right?  Or do\r
+> folks prefer another name?\r
+>\r
+\r
+I had a thought about this. The password manager "pass" uses\r
+\r
+   pass git {push|pull}\r
+\r
+for git related operations. Perhaps that would make sense for us as\r
+well? So initially "notmuch-git".  I'm of course open to better ideas,\r
+but especially since you pushed a bit to make the interface follow git\r
+more closely, perhaps that's a more informative name than "dtag".  It\r
+also leaves open the possibility of stashing other metadata than tags,\r
+should something like [1] come to pass.\r
+\r
+On the other hand, it's true that what we're doing is less transparent\r
+than what pass does, which is really just pass the arguments straight\r
+through to git.\r
+\r
+[1] id:1453561198-2893-2-git-send-email-david@tethera.net\r