Re: [Evolution-hackers] Evolution Maintainership
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 15:15 +0530, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: > This mail is to announce that Srinivasa Ragavan (srag) is joining me > to assume the responsibilites as maintainer of the Evolution project. > > [...] Congratulations, Srini! And a big thank you to Harish and the Evolution team for your hard work and dedication to the project. The truth is, with more than 7 years of development behind it, it's one of the best mailers around. -- Hans Petter Passionate Evolution user ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] [opensuse-gnome] Evolution 2.22 for Factory
[ Adding evolution-hackers to Cc since this contains potentially useful feedback and some questions ] On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 18:06 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 00:40 -0500, Hans Petter Jansson wrote: > > Note 2: If you ran the newer version of Evolution previously, you should > > delete the sqlite database it creates before reverting to the old one - > > otherwise it will think the sqlite database is an mbox and try to index > > it, which will cause errors. Delete ~/.evolution/mail/local/folders.db*. > That - is really bad. Can we not name our db in some way that this > doesn't happen ? is there really no solution here ? if not, why are > these databases in a place where older versions get confused & start > doing stupid things ? - can we not put them somewhere else ? That's a question for the Evo team, I guess - it looks like it could be trivially fixed by moving the folder.db somewhere else, or calling it folder.index or folder.ibex.index or whatever Evolution traditionally filters out. To Evolution's credit, my 500MB folder.db binary blob didn't cause it to crash - it showed up as a bogus local mail folder after about 15 minutes of disk churn - but it did throw errors whenever it needed to pull data for vfolders. Also, it looks like old summary/index files aren't removed - does it require both the sqlite database and summaries now? It increases disk space consumption quite a bit. > Switching between versions, should work right ? I don't know if we ever guaranteed spotless downgrading, but yeah, having that work would be a big plus - especially since users may switch between distros but keep their home dirs. -- Hans Petter ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] [opensuse-gnome] Evolution 2.22 for Factory
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 09:49 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:14 -0500, Hans Petter Jansson wrote: > > That's a question for the Evo team, I guess - it looks like it could be > > trivially fixed by moving the folder.db somewhere else, or calling it > > folder.index or folder.ibex.index or whatever Evolution traditionally > > filters out. > HPJ, the summary can't be named like this, since, its possible that > something like this already exists. .ibex.index has a traditional > meaning and would be more of abusing it in the newer versions. Wouldn't it be possible to use a different directory, e.g. "mail/local-index/folders.db"? That would avoid both problems. > > To Evolution's credit, my 500MB folder.db binary blob didn't cause it to > > crash - it showed up as a bogus local mail folder after about 15 minutes > > of disk churn - but it did throw errors whenever it needed to pull data > > for vfolders. > But, the old version shouldn't touch the folders.db automatically, > meaning the new summary would be safe, unless the user manually deletes > or adds mails to it. Right. For me, folders.db showed up as having 7 unread mails in it. The mbox parser probably found some satisfactory ^From occurrences. It also made local mail unusable, since it would constantly throw errors and fail to update vfolders (details are a little bit foggy at the moment, but I remember being hindered to the point of not being able to read mail). > > Also, it looks like old summary/index files aren't removed - does it > > require both the sqlite database and summaries now? It increases disk > > space consumption quite a bit. > That is left purposefully. Incase you are a user switching across > versions, probably you would have to recreate summaries every time you > do. But first time, we just migrate and don't care later on. So if you > aren't a user of that category, a rm of it manually should suffice. > [probably some more summaries left on the other accounts] Ok, if I can just remove the old indexes/summaries, I'm happy :) > Should we ship a patch for older Evolution versions to ignore > folders.db? May be worth for power users of SLEs and RHEs, who might > still use older version & new version. I still think relocating folders.db is a better option, since it would work for everyone without necessitating an upgrade. -- Hans Petter ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] [opensuse-gnome] Evolution 2.22 for Factory
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:31 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > > Wouldn't it be possible to use a different directory, e.g. > > "mail/local-index/folders.db"? That would avoid both problems. > You end up seeing a new folder local-index in 2.22/older and a > folders.db folder under it. :( Wouldn't that just happen if you had "mail/local/local-index/folders.db"? I was hoping you could place local-index or something equivalent outside the mail/local/ hierarchy entirely - either directly under "~/.evolution/mail/" or, as Ross suggested, in "~/.cache/evolution/" (I like the latter a lot). -- Hans Petter ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
