On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:15:56AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > * Derek Martin <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2006-05-25 23:10 -0400]: > > On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 10:46:22PM -0400, Dave Waxman wrote: > > > > 1. I have no problem with variable name changes as long as a reliable > > > > conversion script is provided together with the new release. > > > > > > I don't think that's possible. Too many things like folder hooks, send > > > hooks etc won't easily be convertible IMO. > > > > Nonsense. We're only talking about changing names of existing > > variables. One name becomes another name. 1 to 1 relationship, 100% > > convertible. > > No. You can't reliably convert an awk script generating mutt config > files. You can't reliably convert variable names in macros or push > commands. For every one existing variable name, there will be exactly one new variable name. How can you not reliably convert any text document which contains them if that is true? -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers.
Attachment:
pgphf6vYMT2pr.pgp
Description: PGP signature