From: Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@infradead.org>
To: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: improve from-header guessing
In-Reply-To: <87pr1qf1lj.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
References: <1271451102-11336-1-git-send-email-hohndel@infradead.org>
	<87pr1qf1lj.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.2-191-gdcd7da3 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1
	(i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:09:56 -0700
Message-ID: <m3633gsm4b.fsf@x200.gr8dns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:47:04 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:51:40 -0700, Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@infradead.org> wrote:
> > The following two patches should address most of the concerns raised 
> > to my previous series. 
> 
> Allow me to raise new concerns then. ;-)

Any time
 
> > The first patch simply adds an interface to obtain a concatenation of
> > all instances of a specific header from an email.
> 
> I was hoping to see the "special-case value of NULL" go away with this
> change.
> 
> And I like that there's a new function to get the concatenated header,
> (I would prefer an unabbreviated name of get_concatenated_header than
> get_header_concat), but I don't like seeing all the existing callers of
> get_header updated to pass an extra 0. Instead, I'd prefer to see those
> calls unchanged, and a tiny new get_header that passes the 0 and then
> make the actual implementing function be static and named something like
> notmuch_message_file_get_header_internal.

Turns out that the way I did this was broken anyway. So we can simply
forget these patches and your concerns. I'm sure you'll raise new
concerns on the new ("rearchitected") patches.

> Both patches have some trailing whitespace. I see these easily wince I
> have the following in my ~/.gitconfig:
> 
> 	[core]
> 		whitespace = trailing-space,space-before-tab

I know. I'm trying to be better about checking whitespace pollution
before submitting things.

> Finally, I'd like to see some tests for this feature. (But we do have
> the feature already without tests, so I won't strictly block on that).

Hu? You even commited these already. Or am I reading email out of order
again? 

/D