1 Return-Path: <dme@dme.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 0F7FA431FD0
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:00:38 -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 avEQwzTP3L3R for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:00:37 -0800 (PST)
\r
17 Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com
\r
18 [209.85.212.181]) (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 60B5F431FB6
\r
21 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:00:37 -0800 (PST)
\r
22 Received: by wibhq2 with SMTP id hq2so5603442wib.26
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:00:34 -0800 (PST)
\r
24 Received: by 10.180.88.10 with SMTP id bc10mr56912818wib.13.1324936834722;
\r
25 Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:00:34 -0800 (PST)
\r
26 Received: from hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net
\r
27 (host81-149-164-25.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [81.149.164.25])
\r
28 by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f19sm5031768wbo.13.2011.12.26.14.00.32
\r
29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
\r
30 Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:00:33 -0800 (PST)
\r
31 Received: by hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net (Postfix, from userid 30000)
\r
32 id 35389A0765; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:00:31 +0000 (GMT)
\r
33 To: Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
34 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v4] emacs: Re-implement advance/rewind functions of
\r
36 In-Reply-To: <87fwg71tdo.fsf@gmail.com>
\r
37 References: <id:"1324553312-10972-1-git-send-email-dme@dme.org">
\r
38 <1324665712-2419-1-git-send-email-dme@dme.org>
\r
39 <87ipl7kt82.fsf@gmail.com>
\r
40 <cunpqfbtxu2.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
\r
41 <87fwg71tdo.fsf@gmail.com>
\r
42 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+107~ga2d0215 (http://notmuchmail.org)
\r
43 Emacs/24.0.92.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
44 From: David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>
\r
45 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:00:21 +0000
\r
46 Message-ID: <cun39c7t2mi.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
\r
48 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
\r
49 micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
\r
50 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
51 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
53 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
54 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
55 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
56 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
57 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
58 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
59 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
60 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
61 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
62 X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:00:38 -0000
\r
65 Content-Type: text/plain
\r
66 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
\r
68 On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:09:55 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmai=
\r
72 > On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:46:13 +0000, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:
\r
73 > > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:01:33 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@=
\r
75 > > > * Revert changes to notmuch-show-advance-and-archive.
\r
77 > > Why? (I mean, because the change is poor or just that it's unrelated or
\r
78 > > because I didn't mention it)
\r
81 > Because it is unrelated.
\r
83 Understood. For me this fell inside the 'trivial other change' boundary.
\r
85 > And can you please explain why `when' is better than `if' here? Then I
\r
86 > will know which one to use the next time :)
\r
88 `if' allows only a single statement for `then', which results in code like:
\r
96 so if there is no `else' clause I've been preferring:
\r
103 but that's obviously personal and not important in this specific case.
\r
105 > > > * Can we split this in two patches? One for rewind and another for
\r
108 > > I'll think about that. Is there a specific reason? I'm not particularly
\r
109 > > in favour of splitting things just for the sake of it.
\r
112 > Because they are independent and can be split. And it is easier to
\r
113 > review (and work in general, I suppose) with two smaller patches than
\r
114 > with a single bigger one.
\r
116 Your git-fu is obviously much stronger than mine. :-) Rebasing (groups
\r
117 of) patches takes more of my time and is more error prone than I'd like.
\r
120 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
\r
122 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
\r
123 Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
\r
125 iEYEARECAAYFAk747nUACgkQaezQq/BJZRbDewCcC6/vNUum8qX21V0qeITYB8y8
\r
126 ak8AniJxv2eQBywX9ztZF6atZqG0IY9p
\r
128 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
\r