Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673C7417339 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:34:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.89 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S5PvUMDWpEBP; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yoom.home.cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91D84196F0; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yoom.home.cworth.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 94B9E568E07; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:23:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Carl Worth To: Jesse Rosenthal , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH v2] notmuch.el: Make notmuch-show buffer name first subject, instead of thread-id In-Reply-To: <878w8wafoa.fsf@jhu.edu> References: <87zl1f5f6u.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <878w8wafoa.fsf@jhu.edu> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:23:06 -0700 Message-ID: <87eiiotdlx.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 23:34:10 -0000 --=-=-= On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:01:09 -0400, Jesse Rosenthal wrote: > Great to hear! Sorry I've been off of email, and still only have > sporadic access. However, one question: it looks like it was V2 of the > patch that you pushed -- was it? Unfortunately, there was a subtle bug > that kept on popping up (when you call notmuch-show interactively, which > rarely happens). Later in this same thread, I offered V4 (yep, there was > a problematic V3 too) which fixes this: I do remember seeing several versions of this patch. And I *think* that I did reply v4. > id:876359cz16.fsf@jhu.edu Looking at this patch carefully, I don't see any difference compared to what I applied in commit 9bee20aed34a9ed035b1a0dc89de89af1c65fd1b It seems to work for me on current master when called interactively. But do let me know if there are any additional changes I should apply here. -Carl --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLv7ba6JDdNq8qSWgRAu3UAJ4tw/G8xJFsE/L7Q5ZM5OoFJ+3rYACfT3Br RBTlaIWDJMcIfneR/9lIvII= =l1ut -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--