ng0 writes: > On 17-03-02 17:01:36, Leo Famulari wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 09:31:54PM +0000, ng0 wrote: >> > In the last patch which added tokyocabinet and its support to neomutt, I >> > did not know that neomutt has support for kyotocabinet which is a >> > separate database from tokyocabinet but kyotocabinet is the currently >> > developed/recommended database (by the database upstream). >> > >> > Should we add this in addition or drop tokyocabinet in favor of adding >> > kyotocabinet ? I'm okay with just adding it. >> >> Sorry, I replied to the patch before seeing this message. If >> tokyocabinet is unmaintained or superseded by kyotocabinet, then let's >> just remove it from neomutt. >> >> >> > > No problem, I've only realized it after the patch was merged in. After > all the patch includes not only the tokyodb. > I'd read the database website and leave it up to someone else as a > second opinion what's the best course of action here. > I only knew of kyotocabinet before I found tokyo and read as tokyo as > the work which happened before kyotocabinet. FYI, I committed the patch a little while ago. I decided to remove tokyocabinet, as kyotocabinet seems to be its successor. You may close the bug if you feel it has been addressed satisfactorily.