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 584B1431FBC
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 07:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
\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 Vqu1harGSzgp for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Mon, 3 Jun 2013 07:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
\r
17 Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (mail-wg0-f43.google.com
\r
18 [74.125.82.43]) (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 06250431FAF for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 07:01:44 -0700
\r
22 Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id x12so3261624wgg.22
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 07:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
\r
24 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
\r
25 d=google.com; s=20120113;
\r
26 h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id
\r
27 :mime-version:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
\r
28 bh=5OL4gGPf7wv73esm74P3vqiPUYm2LEIJeo1bqqUYnkE=;
\r
29 b=jFgAaT042e32xdq0cF7fiDj7n4xDztolKct1tCsNVuATkQTbZJED850AWZnfnFQAcT
\r
30 +JgqDCpfBPP+a7pepcCPOX3iv8UpBrmGJpx01xrtu67klMp2MfZuO8PNFkXNrzgEKgQ9
\r
31 9lBClF/19093aBCLC5x5HsxZyJ3k8+bmMgoNGmC/za3qjaHzOKIzP4RS28oxFotTr5F9
\r
32 jbK0qLc9VFCCRXr49maKyQrzFiEs9yqJi7gQGXWzpqf/gDqOHg55V0ENdYbhPeGQCGDC
\r
33 husQ8C6rswrUxcq947dMjKQouWblg8URMTbET18h7742i8+3XSiNObvCiRCSODUoh+4z
\r
35 X-Received: by 10.180.79.40 with SMTP id g8mr12852236wix.3.1370268103795;
\r
36 Mon, 03 Jun 2013 07:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
\r
37 Received: from localhost ([2001:4b98:dc0:43:216:3eff:fe1b:25f3])
\r
38 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cw8sm23636848wib.7.2013.06.03.07.01.41
\r
39 for <multiple recipients>
\r
40 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
\r
41 Mon, 03 Jun 2013 07:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
\r
42 From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
\r
43 To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
44 Subject: Re: New notmuch vim plugin pushed to master
\r
46 <CAMP44s38Ufds--GXA8Q5aa5gkGWDqdhBTHJobY0qO=E3ij4S=g@mail.gmail.com>
\r
48 <CAMP44s38Ufds--GXA8Q5aa5gkGWDqdhBTHJobY0qO=E3ij4S=g@mail.gmail.com>
\r
49 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+166~ge1c93ad (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
\r
50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
51 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 16:01:38 +0200
\r
52 Message-ID: <878v2rnvi5.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
56 ALoCoQknXtIBF0rKXhlscbKCB54FuHPI4YOYjRh3+UEFyD9tII4yM7Gw/ubRCJ5fRpQ0n1Wfvnsu
\r
57 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
58 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
60 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
61 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
62 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
63 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
64 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
65 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
66 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
67 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
68 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
69 X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:01:51 -0000
\r
71 On Mon, 03 Jun 2013, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
\r
72 > The old plugin has been deprecated and moving to contrib. The new
\r
73 > plugin has much better support and should replace it for all intents
\r
76 Felipe, even though I don't personally use it, I'm glad you're working
\r
77 on the vim plugin. The old one was neglected for too long.
\r
79 > I've pushed the changes and hopefully the packages will be updated
\r
82 I don't think I saw the patches on the list, though. I am not sure if
\r
83 one could have expected much in terms of review, but at least giving
\r
84 people the *chance* for review and discussion about changes of this
\r
85 scale would have been fair.
\r