--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <amdragon@gmail.com>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786E7431FD0\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:13:10 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -0.698\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,\r
+ HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id proMFs+P+k-T for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:13:10 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com (mail-qy0-f181.google.com\r
+ [209.85.216.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))\r
+ (No client certificate requested)\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1A6B431FB6\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:13:09 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so269080qyk.5\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:13:07 -0700 (PDT)\r
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;\r
+ h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date\r
+ :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;\r
+ bh=eHj+kS7hK8Tm2eBZBOwSJ/X9b2X4o6iEZpuhqA4mrgs=;\r
+ b=Od8BcF+n98/U0S71Ubv3xrr94b/nsp2j52o42cFDCqhBAozF3yqkJTa05NqUHt1QJD\r
+ lRZbfm5OxEShJEX/TUbC8SKTV1eWnVJ5IkEaJvo63LF/lX+yvc2k6g2S6Xz0XGZ30NT5\r
+ +Bo+c8YKa9t3QrHzufHgdeqTbBPMTsATywwrs=\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Received: by 10.229.43.143 with SMTP id w15mr409448qce.140.1315584787098; Fri,\r
+ 09 Sep 2011 09:13:07 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Sender: amdragon@gmail.com\r
+Received: by 10.229.2.201 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:13:06 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by 10.229.2.201 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:13:06 -0700 (PDT)\r
+In-Reply-To: <87fwk63v86.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net>\r
+References: <1315249637-20179-1-git-send-email-thomas@schwinge.name>\r
+ <87liu2kcq6.fsf@servo.factory.finestructure.net>\r
+ <20110909090633.GA3178@localdomain>\r
+ <87fwk63v86.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net>\r
+Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:13:06 -0400\r
+X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7NkvJYnrZjluXlvOjCxParK5miU\r
+Message-ID:\r
+ <CAH-f9WutmDs2=UELduO66YPPFhy1g8D4_xNhnEjOiWaJMv7m5Q@mail.gmail.com>\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH] notmuch restore --accumulate\r
+From: Austin Clements <amdragon@mit.edu>\r
+To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@schwinge.name>\r
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00148539240ae82be004ac847386\r
+Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://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: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:13:10 -0000\r
+\r
+--00148539240ae82be004ac847386\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1\r
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\r
+\r
+The idea behind sending the test first is that people can see that it fails\r
+and that the subsequent patch indeed fixes it. What I find works well is t=\r
+o\r
+submit the test case with the test marked as broken and then the main patch=\r
+,\r
+including the change to un-mark it as broken.\r
+On Sep 9, 2011 5:45 AM, "Thomas Schwinge" <thomas@schwinge.name> wrote:\r
+> Hi!\r
+>\r
+> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:06:34 +0200, Louis Rilling <l.rilling@av7.net>\r
+wrote:\r
+>> On 05/09/11 12:31 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:\r
+>> > Also, we generally prefer to have modifications to the test suite in\r
+>> > separate patches that precede the patches that add the features/fix th=\r
+e\r
+>> > bugs.\r
+>> >\r
+>>\r
+>> For new features, this does not look like 'git bisect'-safe.\r
+>\r
+> Exactly my thoughts. I can perhaps see the usefulness (for first\r
+> separately committing the testcase) for bugfixes, but why for new\r
+> features?\r
+>\r
+>> I would say that\r
+>> the testsuite patch should follow the new feature patch, don't you?\r
+>\r
+> I would keep them together; why separate them?\r
+>\r
+>\r
+> Gr=FC=DFe,\r
+> Thomas\r
+\r
+--00148539240ae82be004ac847386\r
+Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1\r
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\r
+\r
+<p>The idea behind sending the test first is that people can see that it fa=\r
+ils and that the subsequent patch indeed fixes it.=A0 What I find works wel=\r
+l is to submit the test case with the test marked as broken and then the ma=\r
+in patch, including the change to un-mark it as broken.</p>\r
+\r
+<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sep 9, 2011 5:45 AM, "Thomas Schwinge&qu=\r
+ot; <<a href=3D"mailto:thomas@schwinge.name">thomas@schwinge.name</a>>=\r
+; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution">> Hi!<br>> <br>> On Fri, 9 Sep 20=\r
+11 11:06:34 +0200, Louis Rilling <<a href=3D"mailto:l.rilling@av7.net">l=\r
+.rilling@av7.net</a>> wrote:<br>\r
+>> On 05/09/11 12:31 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:<br>>> =\r
+> Also, we generally prefer to have modifications to the test suite in<b=\r
+r>>> > separate patches that precede the patches that add the feat=\r
+ures/fix the<br>\r
+>> > bugs.<br>>> > <br>>> <br>>> For new feat=\r
+ures, this does not look like 'git bisect'-safe.<br>> <br>> E=\r
+xactly my thoughts. I can perhaps see the usefulness (for first<br>> se=\r
+parately committing the testcase) for bugfixes, but why for new<br>\r
+> features?<br>> <br>>> I would say that<br>>> the testsu=\r
+ite patch should follow the new feature patch, don't you?<br>> <br>&=\r
+gt; I would keep them together; why separate them?<br>> <br>> <br>\r
+> Gr=FC=DFe,<br>> Thomas<br></div>\r
+\r
+--00148539240ae82be004ac847386--\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff