Ken wrote: > I was just wondering, since the sequence checking code was first in > m_convert(). I just checked; if you create a numeric sequence by hand, > yes, you totally can use it!
At your own peril. It clearly violates the documentation. > So the default case is you don't need the > second call to folder_read(). I think what we should do here is: > > - If you don't give the -seq flag to pick, don't make the second call to > folder_read(). Here's an irrelevant observation, given that we don't want to remove -seq at this point: pick -seq has always bothered me a little as being impure. I would argue that the output of pick should be fed to mark if you want to define any sequences. > - Create a new option to control whether or not you want to maintain > a lock during the whole run of inc and pick. I say default to NOT > having the lock during the full run of these commands and have two > calls to folder_read(); people with 100K+ messages in a single folder > could enable this flag. I do not know what to call this flag; -fulllock? > Too many 'l's in a row, for one. > > What do others think? Somehow that ended up backwards from what I think would be the goal, which is to have only one folder_read() on large folders. Would this work: add, and default to, -lock? If a user trusts themself to do only one operation at a time, and they want the speed, they could use -nolock. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
