Summary: | mutt flag_safe behaviour request | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Fernando Canizo <conan> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Fernando J. Pereda (RETIRED) <ferdy> |
Status: | RESOLVED NEEDINFO | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | agriffis, net-mail+disabled |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
ebuild that applies D. Champion patch to mutt
the D. Champion patch in case his site is down |
Description
Fernando Canizo
2005-08-31 15:44:59 UTC
Created attachment 67373 [details]
ebuild that applies D. Champion patch to mutt
Created attachment 67374 [details, diff]
the D. Champion patch in case his site is down
I'm a bit reluctant to adding yet more patches to mutt... If you *really* need this patch in the gentoo patchset then please rebase it on top of patch 06-pgp_timeout (from our patchset). - ferdy Resolving as NEEDINFO until said patch (rebased) is provided. - ferdy (In reply to comment #3) > I'm a bit reluctant to adding yet more patches to mutt... If you *really* need > this patch in the gentoo patchset then please rebase it on top of patch > 06-pgp_timeout (from our patchset). > - ferdy After more than a year after i posted the feature *and* its solution you tell me you are "a bit reluctant"? You could have said that the day after man! I consider this feature a must, thus yes: "i really need it". Is a must because what's the point of flagging a message if you can inadvertently delete it? If you flagged it is because is important or you need it. I have it implemented since before i posted the feature request so i will not care to rebase the patch, not after seeing my bug report dormant for more than a year, help yourself with the rebased patch if you like. I have already my mutt as i want it. This was to help other users who might not take the work to find their own solutions. Thank you for your time. (In reply to comment #5) > After more than a year after i posted the feature *and* its solution you tell > me you are "a bit reluctant"? You could have said that the day after man! Of course I was not the mutt maintainer and I've just read this bug report. Next time you should probably hire a Gentoo developer if you need '0-day' answers to your reports. > I consider this feature a must, thus yes: "i really need it". Is a must because > what's the point of flagging a message if you can inadvertently delete it? If > you flagged it is because is important or you need it. I don't know and I don't care, take it upstream. The default behaviour works for me. > I have it implemented since before i posted the feature request so i will not > care to rebase the patch, not after seeing my bug report dormant for more than > a year, help yourself with the rebased patch if you like. Good, thanks for a useless post then. - Fernando "tired of people demanding things for free" Pereda (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > After more than a year after i posted the feature *and* its solution you tell > > me you are "a bit reluctant"? You could have said that the day after man! > > Of course I was not the mutt maintainer and I've just read this bug report. > Next time you should probably hire a Gentoo developer if you need '0-day' > answers to your reports. Of course i didn't know that, maybe you could have started your first post saying that, sorry if i heart your feelings. Try to stand in my shoes for a minute: i take the time to give a full solution and the maintainer or whoever was in charge only needed to give it a shot: take what i sent and try it (it worked then and it works now, i can assure that). How much time would have it taken? 5-10 minutes? So please, understand my frustration when i received your answer, i didn't know which maintainer was before nor now. > > I consider this feature a must, thus yes: "i really need it". Is a must because > > what's the point of flagging a message if you can inadvertently delete it? If > > you flagged it is because is important or you need it. > > I don't know and I don't care, take it upstream. The default behaviour works > for me. The patch provided left mutt with default behaviour, nothing was changed on the "defaults". But also allowed the possibility to set the behaviour i proposed. > > I have it implemented since before i posted the feature request so i will not > > care to rebase the patch, not after seeing my bug report dormant for more than > > a year, help yourself with the rebased patch if you like. > > Good, thanks for a useless post then. It was not useless, was a feature request *with* its solution attached. All i wanted was someone had read it and tried. > - Fernando "tired of people demanding things for free" Pereda I was not demanding anything for free. I was giving for free. I'm trying to be nice despite being a little bit frustrated, excuse me if i was a little harsh with you. Just close it if you're not interested in this because i will not invest more time in it. Again sorry about all. |