From: Jani Nikula Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:22:15 +0000 (+0300) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] emacs: new mua mailto: URI handler X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=7deb92206c4ede7ca0cdb6d3e41c6db9087575b3;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: [PATCH 2/2] emacs: new mua mailto: URI handler --- diff --git a/7f/b7a10a3c8a86611d290354dc550f6e6d5efc36 b/7f/b7a10a3c8a86611d290354dc550f6e6d5efc36 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8aabfb295 --- /dev/null +++ b/7f/b7a10a3c8a86611d290354dc550f6e6d5efc36 @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +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 4D6F0431FAF + for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:22:22 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.7 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled +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 50vOMhmw6TV6 for ; + Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:22:21 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com + [209.85.215.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 825C5431FAE + for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:22:21 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by lahc1 with SMTP id c1so3215884lah.26 + for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:22:20 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=google.com; s=20120113; + h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version + :content-type:x-gm-message-state; + bh=wWIPi4nwKECD4fl42eJO0+YmZq2BHxiBMR6YqiHUhvQ=; + b=n+1VvlTd/Xkn3RZTcjiuV5E/DSRpRz8AWL1bs0/VJ9M+u9RTksByfVGGqt5oPaGimQ + 0IffUeJPwo7CpBtOFa6Ux/h41REkn7pVPJdHFVfIe9dn3mskSmFPhlYh+HeWFGUeVAfT + fwKIvo6kcvfPK8M1/QKCcZfvr6Re4f+lRsJlPAKvP/Q7QVqspwA8E4fBm+deVlPBh52W + XvFvxznWpwNblnMilpXgHrLdnWq0CYpa6JSHRks5JVHdzoQIG481ap/tVvcKWKHcjBXq + Y2Lb9O4E+sBLOZecFTf0M1kioOTUdX1hfUMOxid0+0QNgq/uBBH8mutMlk6pGHkWG5Ky + kzzw== +Received: by 10.112.103.74 with SMTP id fu10mr2842461lbb.1.1334438539962; + Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:22:19 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw4-fe50dc00-68.dhcp.inet.fi. + [80.220.80.68]) + by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w10sm17608524lbe.14.2012.04.14.14.22.17 + (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:22:18 -0700 (PDT) +From: Jani Nikula +To: Jameson Graef Rollins , + Notmuch Mail +Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] emacs: new mua mailto: URI handler +In-Reply-To: <87bomucaq3.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +References: <1327865624-7673-1-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net> + <1327865624-7673-2-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net> + <87hawmyt8k.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + <87wr5idprb.fsf@nikula.org> + <87bomucaq3.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>User-Agent: + Notmuch/0.12+81~g839a805 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 + (i686-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:22:15 +0300 +Message-ID: <87r4vqdn5k.fsf@nikula.org> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +X-Gm-Message-State: + ALoCoQnoFtbcZH89UGettjAdMgPs9MofbIEjef27xOgOsPpBmo5tmO/uXjpJ5vBKgDy5mWLw81ax +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: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:22:22 -0000 + +Jameson Graef Rollins writes: + +> On Sat, Apr 14 2012, Jani Nikula wrote: +>> I'm going through the review queue right now, tagging notmuch::stale any +>> patches that don't apply on master. I was just about to nmbug push stale +>> on this one (2/2). Is that in error? Care to verify? +> +> Yes, it is an error. This patch applies to master. Did you in fact +> verify that it doesn't? You should not be tagging patches stale if they +> in fact still apply to master. If they still need review or something +> else that's a different matter. Please don't mark things as stale if +> they are not. + +My nmfirehose script flagged the patch as not applying, and I verified +this (and all of them) by hand, using the emacs interface to save the +patch. No, I'm not intentionally tagging patches stale if they apply, +but I'll stop for now in case there's a bug somewhere (incl. PEBKAC) +breaking the patches and thus making them not apply. + +> Obviously I still care about this patch, or I wouldn't have re-commented +> on it. + +I was doing this purely based on whether the patches apply or not. + + +BR, +Jani.