Am Sa., 12. Feb. 2022 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb Tomi Ollila <>:

> On Sat, Feb 12 2022, David Bremner wrote:
> > Tomi Ollila <> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, Feb 12 2022, Michael J. Gruber wrote:
> >>
> >> Only thing that came into mind are directory timestamps... if directory
> >> (m)time is same as before notmuch will not scan it for files...
> >>
> >> ... following that if the granularity of directory timestamp were 1
> second,
> >> then it could easily happen than first one new message is not seen, and
> >> next time there is one extra message to be see...
> >
> > What do you think about adding --full-scan to the notmuch-new invocation
> > in add_message? It doesn't make any tests fail and is about the same
> > speed. I need to do a few more trials, but first time through it was
> > actually faster (!), maybe because the cache is hot
> Does such a change hide "buggy" functionality ?
> Or do we consider notmuch new buggy if it does not notice all new messages
> arrived every time ?
The timestamping sounds like a perfect explanation of what I've been
seeing. Unfortunately, I can't reproduce the issue "reliably" (with a
certain probability), and so if everything succeeds with --full-scan 10
times it still does not mean much.

As I understand, notmuch new without --full-sync may have issues when the
time resolution is too low (or operations too fast) and will pick a message
on the next run, so it's not really buggy - it uses a shortcut that may be
too quick but does not loose messages in the long run.


notmuch mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to

Reply via email to