Sent from my iPhone
On 08/09/2011, at 0:45, Julien Coloos <julien.col...@atos.net> wrote:
Le 06/09/2011 10:23, Greg Banks a écrit :
a) my commit "Make quota -f less racy" is going to cause lots of
clashes
(sorry!)
b) Bron and I both think that your commit "Compute each quota
resource
upon setting it for the first time." is unnecessary, given that
i) quota -f doesn't suck now, and
ii) soon, all of the quota-able quantities will be tracked in
fields
in the index header.
So I think we'll need another round, sorry :( Given that the
annotations quota is broken and I'll be reimplementing it anyway, you
may as well ignore QUOTA_ANNOTSTORAGE in all commits, and leave out
the
function annotatemore_computequota() for now. We'll use something
very
much like it for reconstruct later. I'm hoping to be able to pull
your
next round of changes into my annotate branch before I reimplement
the
annotation quota in the next few days.
...
I'm still not convinced we'll need quota.sets[], but I'll play along.
Thanks again for your work, and sorry that my annotate branch wasn't
quite as stable a base as you first thought :)
So, I saved my current branch to 'quotamessage-0/gnb/annotate' and
rebased my patches on current 'annotate' branch (with less racy
'quota -f').
I removed everything related to recomputing from my patches (as well
as quota.sets[]).
Excellent, I'll take a look at these when I get into the office.
What is missing now is the new index field, which value will be used
in mailbox_get_usage function. Since my changes do rely on this
function, and sometimes computes a delta compared to a previous call
of that function, it may not need to be updated afterwards ... I hope.
That seems likely. I have an almost-building diff which adds that field.
Then maybe some of the cassandane tests I pushed on our repository
would need to be refreshed (at least the one that checks what
happens for legacy mailboxes on which we add one of the newly
handled quota resources).
Yep.
Greg.
