On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 12:50 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> Milan Crha wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 19:50 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> >
> >> The standard way to nest Maildir folders is such:
> >>
> >> Maildir/
> >>cur/
> >>new/
> >>tmp/
> >>.GNOME/
> >> cur/
> >>
chenthill wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:56 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
>
>> On 12/15/2009 02:46 PM, Chenthill wrote:
>>
>>> Hi fellow hackers!!
>>> I have been working for a while during last week on one the blockers
>>> in evolution - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5
Milan Crha wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 19:50 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
>
>> The standard way to nest Maildir folders is such:
>>
>> Maildir/
>>cur/
>>new/
>>tmp/
>>.GNOME/
>> cur/
>> new/
>> tmp/
>>.GNOME.Evolution/
>>
>
> maybe, but Evolution d
On 12/17/2009 05:36 AM, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 19:56 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
>
>> Does it really crash? It used to just regenerate the summary files.
>>
> yes, on out of memory, as it tries to allocate a very large memory block
> due to misreading items.
>
Ah,
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 17:11 +0530, chen wrote:
> So I think we can conclude the way to go as maildir. We will also have a
> preference option for sharing, which will be disabled by default for the
> local folders in evolution.
As waiters and waitresses in the US would say on such an occasion:
"exc
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:56 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On 12/15/2009 02:46 PM, Chenthill wrote:
> > Hi fellow hackers!!
> > I have been working for a while during last week on one the blockers
> > in evolution - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550414 -
> > 'Folder and summary m
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 13:56 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:07 +0530, chen wrote:
> > I also come across another issue, even if we start using maildir
> format,
> > we cannot assume that multiple applications would access the data
> > especially since local folders belong to e
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 19:50 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> The standard way to nest Maildir folders is such:
>
> Maildir/
>cur/
>new/
>tmp/
>.GNOME/
> cur/
> new/
> tmp/
>.GNOME.Evolution/
maybe, but Evolution doesn't use this model, it is creating subfolde
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 19:56 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> Does it really crash? It used to just regenerate the summary files.
yes, on out of memory, as it tries to allocate a very large memory block
due to misreading items.
> > b) you cannot just drop it and regenerate, because it holds some
On 12/16/2009 02:40 PM, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 11:35 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
>
>> The summary files would have had this problem, but they would have
>> just been regenerated, so not really an issue.
>>
> Hi,
> a) it's similar as moving from 32bit to 64bit ar
On 12/16/2009 02:50 PM, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 17:34 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
>
>> Btw, just don't remember well, but Milan did a research of the same,
>> moving from mbox to maildir. Milan do you remember the points to
>> consider? It will be helpful
>>
> Hi
On 12/16/09 5:18 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
I fell it will be slower compared to the other approach. You dont
rewrite the file entirely at all in normal usage.
Setting mail flags was mentioned as the reason for not using maildir.
Adding a mail flag to an mbox mail requires rewriting the whole file
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 17:34 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> Btw, just don't remember well, but Milan did a research of the same,
> moving from mbox to maildir. Milan do you remember the points to
> consider? It will be helpful
Hi,
I'm sorry, I forgot those, it's quite long time ago. Some
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 11:35 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> The summary files would have had this problem, but they would have
> just been regenerated, so not really an issue.
Hi,
a) it's similar as moving from 32bit to 64bit architecture or the other
way; evo crashes for these situation
Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> Matthew Barnes wrote:
>
>> there was concern that simply turning it on would somehow break existing
>> installs. I'm fuzzy on the details, but vaguely recall it being about a
>> field size in some binary file being dependent on sizeof(off_t), which
>> would change with
Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:56 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
>
>> This just means the proper LARGEFILE flags are not being used at
>> compile time. Either EDS's configure isn't doing proper checks or else
>> Evolution itself isn't doing proper checks and there is some sort
Reid Thompson wrote:
Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:55 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
Maildir is good, none denies it. But maildir is already there, but not
sure how many use it.
I do, and I know several other people who do
+1
The local default mbox account on my system is emp
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:56 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> This just means the proper LARGEFILE flags are not being used at
> compile time. Either EDS's configure isn't doing proper checks or else
> Evolution itself isn't doing proper checks and there is some sort of clash.
>
> An easy way to fi
On 12/15/2009 02:46 PM, Chenthill wrote:
> Hi fellow hackers!!
> I have been working for a while during last week on one the blockers
> in evolution - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550414 -
> 'Folder and summary mismatch error'(old one -
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:16 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
> One advantage which I see with #1 is that its a standard way.
One thing about both approaches, is that they will consume more space;
eg. on my 'Sent' folder with 21k messages - on average (on ext3) we will
chew ~2k of space for each of
Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:55 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
Maildir is good, none denies it. But maildir is already there, but not
sure how many use it.
I do, and I know several other people who do
+1
The local default mbox account on my system is empty.
I filter some of t
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:55 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
>> Maildir is good, none denies it. But maildir is already there, but not
>> sure how many use it.
>
> I do, and I know several other people who do. The question how to enable
> maild
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:55 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> Maildir is good, none denies it. But maildir is already there, but not
> sure how many use it.
I do, and I know several other people who do. The question how to enable
maildir for an account is a question that comes up often on the user
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 16:54 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:19 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 15:09 -0500, Reid Thompson wrote:
>> >> >
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 13:56 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:07 +0530, chen wrote:
> > I also come across another issue, even if we start using maildir format,
> > we cannot assume that multiple applications would access the data
> > especially since local folders belong to evo
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 07:50 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 13:18 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > We are debating the merits of the actual mail storage, not the summary
> > data. I have wiped out folders.db often enough that I won't use
> > Evolution when it switches to storing
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:07 +0530, chen wrote:
> I also come across another issue, even if we start using maildir format,
> we cannot assume that multiple applications would access the data
> especially since local folders belong to evolution and would be used
> frequently. (see https://bugzilla.gn
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 13:18 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> We are debating the merits of the actual mail storage, not the summary
> data. I have wiped out folders.db often enough that I won't use
> Evolution when it switches to storing valuable, unrecoverable
> information like the "mail was read" fl
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 16:54 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Patrick Ohly
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:19 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 15:09 -0500, Reid Thompson wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:16 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
> >>
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 17:34 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> Really, we aren't inventing a new format. Its mbox, but organized a
> bit differently, like how some providers store, (Exchange, GW, (IMAP4
> ?) store.
Perhaps a naive question, but does it have to be stored as mbox? Could
we not just
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 16:54 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:19 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 15:09 -0500, Reid Thompson wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:16 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
> >> >
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 16:54 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
>> > I definitely won't switch away from maildir as my format of choice
>> > because it integrates nicely with offlineimap.
>>
>> Sure, I think users should have that freedom. Camel's
>>> On 12/16/2009 at 01:16 AM, in message
<1260906365.615.858.ca...@linux-e1q4.site>, Chenthill
wrote:
> Hi fellow hackers!!
> I have been working for a while during last week on one the blockers
> in evolution - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550414 -
> 'Folder and summary mismat
> > I thought of bring this in this list to gather more opinions to choose
> > the right one. The approach #2 seems a better one as we are choosing a
> > way for storing the messages internally in evo. Are we missing to see
> > anything while we choose the second one ?
> > One advantage which I see
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 16:54 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> > I definitely won't switch away from maildir as my format of choice
> > because it integrates nicely with offlineimap.
>
> Sure, I think users should have that freedom. Camel's local folder
> implementation has that built in. This new
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:19 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 15:09 -0500, Reid Thompson wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:16 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
>> > > * Not able to create subfolders under INBOX -
>> > > https://bugzill
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:19 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 15:09 -0500, Reid Thompson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:16 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
> > > * Not able to create subfolders under INBOX -
> > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=536240 .
> > I hadn't noticed th
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:10 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> Did you have a scheme in mind for how to partition the mbox files into
> subdirectories? One possibility might be to use a similar approach as
> CamelDataCache. That is, take the last two (or three?) digits of the
> MD5 checksum of the Me
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:25 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
>> It should be rocket fast!. Expunge is just unlink one file. Change of
>> flags etc rewrites just that file when upsync happens. No rewrite 2gb
>> of a file, to expunge 10 mails.
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:25 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> It should be rocket fast!. Expunge is just unlink one file. Change of
> flags etc rewrites just that file when upsync happens. No rewrite 2gb
> of a file, to expunge 10 mails. Startup/shutdown faster etc etc. I'm a
> fan of this, what so
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 15:09 -0500, Reid Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:16 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
>
> >
> > Approach #1,
> > migrating local storage from mbox to maildir format. With maildir I
> > have
> > heard about two issues,
> >
> > * Not able to create subfolders under INBOX -
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:16 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
>
> Approach #1,
> migrating local storage from mbox to maildir format. With maildir I
> have
> heard about two issues,
>
> * Not able to create subfolders under INBOX -
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=536240 .
I hadn't noticed the
Hello everyone,
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Chenthill wrote:
> Hi fellow hackers!!
> I have been working for a while during last week on one the blockers
> in evolution - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550414 -
> 'Folder and summary mismatch error'(old one -
> https://bugzilla
Hi fellow hackers!!
I have been working for a while during last week on one the blockers
in evolution - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550414 -
'Folder and summary mismatch error'(old one -
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213072). As a matter of fact
we have been working
44 matches
Mail list logo
