On 16/04/2009, at 14.44, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:13, Jon Bendtsen <jbendtsen_at_laerdal.dk>
> wrote:
>> On 14/04/2009, at 19.42, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> ...
>>> If there are interest in cleaning this up for inclusion in
>>> subversion
>>> I'll update against current trunk and try to clean it up further. As
>>> it is now it is mostly FYI only.
>>
>> I am interested in applying it to my local copy. But i would really
>> prefer a clean patch.
>>
>> I would like to point out that i tried to use mailpost from inn2 to
>> post mailer.py mail messages (because i already email them) but
>> mailpost (or innd) did not like the Date header, because it did not
>> follow RFC 850 or RFC 2822.
>> inews failed: inews: cannot send article to server: 441 \
>> Can't parse "Date" header inews: article not posted
>>
>> Maybe you run into the same problem? Maybe the date thing has been
>> fixed. It was fixed for commit-email.pl, but i couldnt find a bug for
>> mailer.py
>
> Then there probably isn't a bug. I hadn't heard of this until now. Tho
> I was out of the dev loop for a number of years...
I can not reproduce the problem. I did have 3 messages from 5 April
2009, but today i tried posting another, and it worked fine. Looking
at the date header it was different. I will try again later.
>> About submitting patches to mailer.py. I made some a few months
>> ago. I
>> did get some feedback, i asked questions, there was some debate. In
>> the end i believe i did make the changes but nothing happened. I
>> still
>
> Yah. I got distracted by wc-ng work.
That can happen to anyone.
> I should take a look again at that stuff.
Thank you, but are there no others who could provide feedback?
>> think it was worthwhile because at least my developers that uses
>> mailer.py and subversion internally got some extra functionality that
>> they requested. If others doesnt want it, i dont mind. I would have
>> prefered to have it included such that I dont have to change my
>> patches as the mailer.py gets other new development.
>
> I liked the ideas, so we'll get it in. Just need to find some cycles
> when I'm not heads-down on working on wc-ng.
It's okay, i suppose open source projects always lacks developertime.
> And yes, posting to NNTP makes sense to me. I originally designed the
> Output stuff to have flexibility in how messages are delivered. NTTP
> ought to just be another way to output the message.
okay, so thats why it is you that reviews patches.
JonB
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1747253
Received on 2009-04-16 15:19:03 CEST