There's a piece of code in addir (uip/folder.c) that seems well intended but
causes problems. It's the stuff under the "short cut" comment below.
static void
addir (char *name)
{
int nlink;
char *base, *cp;
struct stat st;
st
Date:Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:06:08 -0700
From:Jon Steinhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Anyone have a problem if I remove this test?
Yes.
It is that test that makes folder run in manageable time, without it,
every message in every folder has t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Anyone have a problem if I remove this test?
> Jon
Not really. It might be worth to think about it twice though. I seem
to recall reading in, was it the man mage for find(1)??, that this or
a similar thing might speed up some types of directory structure
traversals
Jon Steinhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Oct 20, 2003:
> Problem is,
>the folder command doesn't work because there are no subdirectories in the
>mail directory, even though there are links to them.
It is hard to imagine a Mail dir
Robert Elz writes:
> | Anyone have a problem if I remove this test?
>
> Yes.
>
> It is that test that makes folder run in manageable time, without it,
> every message in every folder has to be stat'd to see if it happens to
> be a directory - with it, folders with no sub-folders (which almost a
Date:Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:56:55 -0700
From:Jon Steinhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| How about if I change the test so that it is only ignored for the top
| level directory?
That would do much less harm, but is unlikely to be so easy (that
Robert Elz wrote:
> | How about if I change the test so that it is only ignored for the top
> | level directory?
>
> That would do much less harm, but is unlikely to be so easy (that function
> gets called for any level in the hierarchy, if I recall correctly).
>
> An alternative would be a "
