Matthew T. O'Conno <matthew@zeut.net> said:
> Aaron Stone wrote:
> They should be, but they may not be. DBMail will hum along just fine
> without ever running dbmail-util. In someone might never want to delete
> messages from their database so they may not use it at all. These
> people would get bitten.
>
>>You bring up a good point, which I agree with, that there should be
>>nothing special happening as we move upwards in 2.0.x, but is_header is
>>going to be a big help and I think that one revision of explaining that
>>dbmail-util should be in one's regular routine is worth the hassle.
>>
> I have felt for quite a while that this project doesn't pay enough
> attention to these types of things. If you want to be considered a
> serious IMAP server then users can't think that features get added under
> their feet inside of a stable release.
I think this stems from the leadup to 2.0.0 being called 'rc' for almost a
year. That was a learning experience for all of us on how not to name a
beta.
Not to make light of you, but we could rephrase it as a bug:
DBMail 2.0.0 and 2.0.1 fail to set is_header flag for header rows.
In fact, doing so might be just the ticket to convincing people not to
downgrade to 2.0.0 or 2.0.1 once we've moved on to later revisions. If we
use 2.0.2 as an intermediary, as Paul suggested (2.0.2 provides is_header
INSERTS, then 2.0.3 uses is_header SELECTS) then we're sure to have at
least one fall-back version that can handle a mixture of is_header and
non-is_header rows, while still working towards an all-is_header
situation.
Aaron
