1 Return-Path: <jani@nikula.org>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FB4431FD0
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 04:24:50 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled
\r
13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
14 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
15 with ESMTP id kN8LnR-moUDr for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Mon, 26 Dec 2011 04:24:50 -0800 (PST)
\r
17 Received: from mail-ee0-f53.google.com (mail-ee0-f53.google.com
\r
18 [74.125.83.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client
\r
19 certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id
\r
20 BAA52431FB6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 04:24:49 -0800
\r
22 Received: by eekd41 with SMTP id d41so13305627eek.26
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 04:24:47 -0800 (PST)
\r
24 Received: by 10.213.11.12 with SMTP id r12mr1197231ebr.87.1324902286891;
\r
25 Mon, 26 Dec 2011 04:24:46 -0800 (PST)
\r
26 Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw4-fe5cdc00-23.dhcp.inet.fi.
\r
28 by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 13sm91183655eeu.1.2011.12.26.04.24.44
\r
29 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 26 Dec 2011 04:24:45 -0800 (PST)
\r
30 From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
\r
31 To: David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
32 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] emacs: create patch filename from subject for
\r
33 inline patch fake parts
\r
34 In-Reply-To: <cun62h3tu51.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
\r
35 References: <1321657368-13872-1-git-send-email-jani@nikula.org>
\r
36 <cover.1324849534.git.jani@nikula.org>
\r
37 <aa55383e8609a2e0d376744ff3e982fd072c58d6.1324849534.git.jani@nikula.org>
\r
38 <cun62h3tu51.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
\r
39 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+129~g311bcf8 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
\r
41 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:24:42 +0200
\r
42 Message-ID: <87wr9ja5bp.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
45 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
46 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
48 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
49 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
50 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
51 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
52 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
53 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
54 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
55 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
56 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
57 X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:24:50 -0000
\r
59 On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:06:02 +0000, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:
\r
60 > On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 00:00:05 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
\r
61 > > +(defun notmuch-wash-subject-to-patch-filename (subject)
\r
62 > > + "Convert a patch mail SUBJECT into a filename.
\r
64 > > +The resulting filename is similar to the names generated by \"git
\r
65 > > +format-patch\". If the patch mail was generated and sent using
\r
66 > > +\"git format-patch/send-email\", this should re-create the
\r
67 > > +original filename the sender had."
\r
68 > > + (let* ((n (notmuch-wash-subject-to-patch-sequence-number subject))
\r
69 > > + (n (if n n 1)))
\r
70 > > + (format "%04d-%s.patch" n (notmuch-wash-subject-to-filename subject 52))))
\r
73 > (format "%04d-%s.patch"
\r
74 > (or (notmuch-wash-subject-to-patch-sequence-number subject) 1)
\r
75 > (notmuch-wash-subject-to-filename subject 52))
\r
77 > or something would be more lispy.
\r
79 Yes, definitely. I am still very much a beginner in lisp.
\r
81 > Clicking on the button for the part saves the wrong thing, though,
\r
82 > because it's not a real MIME part. That looks a bit awkward to fix, so
\r
83 > perhaps you could still prefix the name with "inline: " to indicate that
\r
86 I'm not sure I follow you here. Could you elaborate what you mean by
\r
87 "the wrong thing", please?
\r
89 I don't think the user would want to have an "inline: " prefix in the
\r
90 filename that would have to be removed every time. I think that kind of
\r
91 defeats the purpose here. Or where exactly are you proposing to have the
\r