On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:52:58 -0800, Carl Worth <cwo...@cworth.org> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:53:13 +0000, James Westby <jw+deb...@jameswestby.net> > wrote: > Oh, I was assuming you wouldn't index any text. The UI can add "missing > message" for a document with no filename, for example.
Works for me. > > So, to summarise, I should first look at storing filesizes, then > > the collision code to make it index further when the filesize grows, > > and then finally the code to add documents for missing messages? > > Some of the code areas to be touched will be changing soon, (at least as > far as when filenames appear and disappear). Hopefully I'll have > something posted for that sooner rather than later to avoid having to > redo too much work. That would be great. I'm learning all the code anyway, so there's not a whole lot of knowledge being thrown away. I've just sent an initial cut at the fist step. > > The only thing I am unclear on is how to handle existing databases? > > Do we have any concept of versioning? Or should I just assume that > > filesize: may not be in the document and act appropriately? > > My current, outstanding patch is going to be the first trigger for a > "flag day" where we'll all need to rewrite our databases. > > We don't have any concept of versioning yet, but it would obviously be > easy to have a new version document with an increasing integer. > > But even with my current patch I'm considering doing a graceful upgrade > of the database in-place rather than making the user do something like a > dump, delete, rebuild, restore. That would give a much better experience > than "Your database is out-of-date, please rebuild it", so we'll see if > I pursue that in the end. That sounds nice, I'd certainly prefer this sort of thing as it evolves. Thanks, James _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list email@example.com http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch