multiple machine tagging
On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:25:42 +0100, David Edmondson wrote: > What's the current state of the art in merging tags from multiple > machines? About the same, I think. I had started trying to figure out a way to do a smarter dump (only dumping changed info) for my distributed tagging/bug-tracking idea, and had some early success, though the python implementation kills some of the speed gains. (Do play with it though!) But in your case, dumping probably isn't the lag so much as restoring, right? What about: nm dump master>master-dump; nm dump copy >copy-dump; diff copy-dump master-dump | grep "^>" | etc... This could all be scripted with scp or curl to do the networking between machines. Smarter (history- and namespace-aware) dumping could only improve this, of course, and is very possible. But the abovr approach seems like it would remove the restore bottleneck (unless I misunderstand how restore works with unlisted messages). Best, Jesse
multiple machine tagging
What's the current state of the art in merging tags from multiple machines? In my own case the contents of the mail store can be considered identical on the different machines. Automated tagging is mostly fine - it can just happen on each of the machines. Any hand-added tags are a problem, though. dme. -- David Edmondson, http://dme.org -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100520/4028cc92/attachment.pgp>
Re: [PATCH] emacs: Allow the display of absolute dates in the header line.
On Wed, 19 May 2010 07:44:18 +0100, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote: Add `notmuch-show-relative-dates' to control whether the summary line in `notmuch-show' mode displays relative dates (e.g. '26 mins. ago') or the full date string from the message. Default to `t' for compatibility with the previous behaviour. Excellent - thanks for providing this (and all I did was mention it briefly on IRC... I love this project) /D -- Dirk Hohndel Intel Open Source Technology Center ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
multiple machine tagging
What's the current state of the art in merging tags from multiple machines? In my own case the contents of the mail store can be considered identical on the different machines. Automated tagging is mostly fine - it can just happen on each of the machines. Any hand-added tags are a problem, though. dme. -- David Edmondson, http://dme.org pgpQwsIaGfoUB.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: multiple machine tagging
On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:25:42 +0100, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote: What's the current state of the art in merging tags from multiple machines? About the same, I think. I had started trying to figure out a way to do a smarter dump (only dumping changed info) for my distributed tagging/bug-tracking idea, and had some early success, though the python implementation kills some of the speed gains. (Do play with it though!) But in your case, dumping probably isn't the lag so much as restoring, right? What about: nm dump mastermaster-dump; nm dump copy copy-dump; diff copy-dump master-dump | grep ^ | etc... This could all be scripted with scp or curl to do the networking between machines. Smarter (history- and namespace-aware) dumping could only improve this, of course, and is very possible. But the abovr approach seems like it would remove the restore bottleneck (unless I misunderstand how restore works with unlisted messages). Best, Jesse ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
