From: Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>
To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Output unmodified Content-Type header value for JSON
	format.
In-Reply-To: <87sjlktgi6.fsf@zancas.localnet>
References: <1321659905-24367-1-git-send-email-dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>
	<1321676321-27745-1-git-send-email-dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>
	<87sjlktgi6.fsf@zancas.localnet>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10~rc1+20~gec94ced (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:35:42 +0400
Message-ID: <87obw6prpd.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 08:59:29 -0400, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 08:18:41 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Before the change, notmuch used g_mime_content_type_to_string(3)
> > function to output Content-Type header value.  Turns out it outputs
> > only "type/subtype" part and ignores all parameters.  Also, if there
> > is no Content-Type header, default "text/plain" value is used.
> 
> Hi Dmitry;
> 
> I haven't analyzed the substance of your patch yet, but I did have a
> couple thoughts while reading your mail.
> 
> - It seems that every time we change the json format, we have a round of
>   suffering because people are unable to detect a mismatch between their
>   emacs code and the cli. Not that this is your problem necessarily, but
>   it would be nice if someone (TM), would come up with some version info
>   for the json output, and a patch to check it on the emacs side.
> 

IMO this is a good idea.

> - The previous point is a bit of a counterargument to this, but in
>   general, I think I prefer patches that modify the core seperate from
>   those that do emacs (or python, or ...) stuff.
> 

I couls separate it.  I made is a single patch to avoid having a
revision with broken emacs UI (and tests).

Regards,
  Dmitry

> - I understand you want to make your patches reviewable without applying
>   by including lots of context, but at a certain point it has actually
>   the opposite effect for me. I just don't read 900+ line emails ;). Of
>   course, I can still apply the patch and look at it, so it's really up
>   to you.
> 
> d