Am Sa., 12. Feb. 2022 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb Tomi Ollila <tomi.oll...@iki.fi>:
> On Sat, Feb 12 2022, David Bremner wrote: > > > Tomi Ollila <tomi.oll...@iki.fi> 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. Michael > >
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list -- notmuch@notmuchmail.org To unsubscribe send an email to notmuch-le...@notmuchmail.org
