On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 00:05 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> The problem is, we need to handle these updates *atomically*. If we
> store the new timestamp before the changed messages, and we crash in
> the
> middle of doing so, then we might miss out forever on the messages in
> question. We'd resta
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 09:49 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's understood from your description, but the
> SyncKey on the exchange server changes as soon as the Sync call is
> finished (the server returns the new key), and asking with the old key
> results in this "bug".
Not quite.
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 00:09 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> In fact, even that would be OK if we got the *same* answer. All of the
> changes we get given in a single update are perfectly fine to apply
> twice. The real problem happens if the folder has changed again in the
> meantime, and some of t
