On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 08:44:28PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > On 01.08.2016, at 14:14, Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenha...@gmx.de> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 05:50:50PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > >> I am not sure if there is any value except backward compatibility > >> to the code using bdb? > >> > > AltMap? > > Thanks for pointing out the option, my description was fairly confused. > While the description helps a bit, it's not really clear to me how much value > this feature has. > depends on the user, i guess. i haven't heard from anyone who actually needed it (i.e., could not reconfigure their MUA to behave sensibly), but i'm a bit caucious about simply removing it. i guess we'd learn soon enough if some distributor chose to actually disable it.
> And if one would switch to e.g. gdbm (assuming I remember right that > that's fairly similar to bdb) how much of preserved value vs. > transition pain that would result in. > that's a good point. if the db formats are not 100% compatible (at least in the relevant direction), the migration would definitely involve a temporary conversion to the "normal" uid mapping scheme *before* upgrading, or usage of some external db conversion tool (any idea?). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ isync-devel mailing list isync-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
