On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 09:15:47PM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 10:30:52AM +0000, Crystal Kolipe wrote: > >This could plausibly break things for anyone who has written one or more old > >maildir directories to a read-only medium, and to save space has removed the > >empty 'new' and 'tmp' directories. > > > >On the other hand, implementing this change would discourange users from > >doing > >the same thing going forward, so overall I think it's the correct approach. > > > >Would it make sense to drop the check for 'new' and 'tmp' IFF 'cur' can only > >be opened read-only? > > > >Admittedly, anybody who removes 'tmp' and 'new' has already created a > >non-standard directory structure that other programs would not be guaranteed > >to recognise. But that doesn't mean that somebody out there hasn't done it. > > > >Maybe have the 'missing new and tmp, but on a read-only medium' case throw a > >warning, and see if anybody ever mentions seeing the warning. If not, remove > >the workaround after a couple of years. > > Thanks Crystal. I appreciate your thinking through possible problems! > > However, I don't think that potential case is a big enough issue to add the > extra code, or delay fixing by a couple years (with a warning). :-) > > I'll add an entry to the UPDATING file to let people know about the change, > but after hearing others got confused by the same weird behavior I'd rather > just fix it now.
Sure, I agree it is an edge-case. If you think that fixing it sooner rather than later benefits more users than waiting would do then I trust your judgement :-). (BTW, I only saw your message after already replying to Alejando.)
