On 2018-09-27 16:12, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 02:10:56PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote:
Is this something you would consider including in mbsync? If not,
why? Can an alternative design be made?
the patch is a monumental hack
Thank you :)
given the purpose, so rejected.
but the underlying idea is actually more in line with my own thinking
than yuri's patch. see
https://sourceforge.net/p/isync/mailman/message/35620423/ ,
https://sourceforge.net/p/isync/mailman/isync-devel/thread/878tp3hm7x.fsf%40wavexx.thregr.org/#msg35673594
ff., and https://sourceforge.net/p/isync/feature-requests/8/ .
Thanks for the pointers.
So you're aiming for the PostCmd? I like that but it seems sort of far
off. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask mbsync to give some output,
either to STDOUT or as a return code about what happened. Right now it
really doesn't. It's like a little black box and my monumental hack
tried to pierce that in a simple way. Regardless of PostCmd, wouldn't it
be nice to be able to programmatically read some output from mbsync?
The other suggestions include writing files in various places and
checking what's been updated. They are even worse monumental hacks than
what I wrote.
Kind regards,
Kristian.
_______________________________________________
isync-devel mailing list
isync-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
