On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 07:50 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 13:18 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > We are debating the merits of the actual mail storage, not the summary
> > data. I have wiped out folders.db often enough that I won't use
> > Evolution when it switches to storing valuable, unrecoverable
> > information like the "mail was read" flag there.
> Valuable, unrecoverable message meta-data (flags, tags, labels, etc.)
> should really be split off as a separate database: folders.db and, say,
> metadata.db.

Perhaps it is just me or the way how SQLite was used so far in
Evolution, but given the past experience with folders.db, I also have
doubts about the reliability of such a metadata.db. I'd prefer a
standard format that can be access by other tools.

But you are right, in general separating the different kinds of data
into different physical files is certainly an improvement over the
current situation.

Bye, Patrick Ohly

Evolution-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to