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 E492F431FB6
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:54:35 -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 QTsHUC1Ekvr9 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:54:31 -0800 (PST)
\r
17 Received: from mail-bk0-f45.google.com (mail-bk0-f45.google.com
\r
18 [209.85.214.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
\r
19 (No client certificate requested)
\r
20 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC3DD431FAF
\r
21 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:54:30 -0800 (PST)
\r
22 Received: by mail-bk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id v16so1021845bkz.4
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:54:29 -0800 (PST)
\r
24 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
\r
25 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
\r
26 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references
\r
27 :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;
\r
28 bh=xdVuC1aN/hzZsA1m3ePI5bg7lGO3c4JDi98xrmalqtM=;
\r
29 b=fpbvJbZ/r6MlP8y/LD1kM8jCBJXioETL8PnSUXyk0axmtcikMWnhF2I/DNhBKCEVgE
\r
30 B6wbk9yEiOsZ04BKyd2DVXv2/15s4CngxBQHwYboxDWC8s+Pxu2pnodhr12ZmFZzG5s6
\r
31 oGr3+u6zLcaVWaqodlq/Nlc7o5HmzLGMlVj3rPiApBNyzmmB6w8mygFSI4jFU5oXN/cL
\r
32 nKr/6TB8j5NxSgb2uyPGjtXe7wkRDuV3k81jA3v2muiRqT6UA9KCbF1MorfVzmejXpur
\r
33 FeOHmVLsaKWTHiWNTtJaNppOOKVvRj4+FSXLUw3yho2jzQEXAggHtbdF3UH24sDqJckw
\r
36 ALoCoQk2feOzt/uSRTvMNDT+11YnltMDkrTqjNx1MhuHVDu5b3yz40AjYeqpt/nWSabdDkwoC1WW
\r
37 X-Received: by 10.204.116.70 with SMTP id l6mr298262bkq.130.1390557268091;
\r
38 Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:54:28 -0800 (PST)
\r
39 Received: from localhost ([2001:4b98:dc0:43:216:3eff:fe1b:25f3])
\r
40 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d5sm2219017bkc.9.2014.01.24.01.54.26
\r
41 for <multiple recipients>
\r
42 (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
\r
43 Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:54:27 -0800 (PST)
\r
44 From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
\r
45 To: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
46 Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] cli: add --quiet option to notmuch new
\r
47 In-Reply-To: <87txctah9h.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
48 References: <cover.1390163335.git.jani@nikula.org>
\r
49 <276371280dfbf8d98a9970b68910e1c030769641.1390163335.git.jani@nikula.org>
\r
50 <87txctah9h.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
51 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17~rc2+18~gab1d8e8 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
\r
52 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
53 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:54:15 +0100
\r
54 Message-ID: <87iot91z94.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
56 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\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: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:54:36 -0000
\r
71 On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:
\r
72 > I am not sure I like doing the database upgrade with no comment to the
\r
75 I think --quiet should mean we don't write to stdout at all. So the
\r
76 question becomes, is the database upgrade worth warning about in stderr?
\r
78 > In fact I am not sure I like doing the upgrade without being
\r
79 > specifically told to (e.g. it does not give the user a clear chance to
\r
80 > backup the database first)
\r
82 > What would people think about having a --upgrade-database option to
\r
85 We discussed this at length on IRC some time ago. I think we concluded
\r
86 we should continue doing it automatically, but I'll post a summary when
\r