Aaron Stone wrote: > > We could introduce is_header usage even in 2.0.x, because the field is > > present in 2.0. But is a database upgrade script acceptable, even if it > > only fills in an already-present field? > > I'd am very, very much against an upgrade script within a stable series. > We should instead make the application robust to the missing values, and > perhaps to fill them in on the fly. I'm not sure if this is possible with > is_header, but I'd definitely like to try.
While filling the values in would probably be possible, they would only be of any use if we could know, before starting a SEARCH or something, whether the filling-in was done for this particular mailbox. We'd have to have some kind of flag on the mailbox. Any thoughts on how to do this? Yours, Mikhail Ramendik
