On Thu, Oct 24 2013, David Bremner wrote:
> Austin Clements writes:
>
>> And in libnotmuch, we would do something like
>>
>> notmuch_status_t
>> notmuch_database_open (const char *path,
>>notmuch_database_mode_t mode,
>>const notmuch_options_t
On Wed, Oct 23 2013, Austin Clements wrote:
> Quoth Tomi Ollila on Oct 23 at 10:05 pm:
>> On Thu, Oct 10 2013, David Bremner wrote:
>>
>> > Tomi Ollila writes:
>> >>> I'm not opposed to doing an SONAME bump for 0.17. Are there other ABI
>> >>> breaking changes that we have been holding back
On Thu, Oct 24 2013, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu writes:
And in libnotmuch, we would do something like
notmuch_status_t
notmuch_database_open (const char *path,
notmuch_database_mode_t mode,
const
On Thu, Oct 10 2013, David Bremner wrote:
> Tomi Ollila writes:
>>> I'm not opposed to doing an SONAME bump for 0.17. Are there other ABI
>>> breaking changes that we have been holding back on? Can these maybe go
>>> through at the same time?
>>
>> Maybe something along these lines...
>>
>>
Austin Clements writes:
> And in libnotmuch, we would do something like
>
> notmuch_status_t
> notmuch_database_open (const char *path,
>notmuch_database_mode_t mode,
>const notmuch_options_t *options,
>notmuch_database_t
Quoth Tomi Ollila on Oct 23 at 10:05 pm:
> On Thu, Oct 10 2013, David Bremner wrote:
>
> > Tomi Ollila writes:
> >>> I'm not opposed to doing an SONAME bump for 0.17. Are there other ABI
> >>> breaking changes that we have been holding back on? Can these maybe go
> >>> through at the same time?
On Thu, Oct 10 2013, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Tomi Ollila tomi.oll...@iki.fi writes:
I'm not opposed to doing an SONAME bump for 0.17. Are there other ABI
breaking changes that we have been holding back on? Can these maybe go
through at the same time?
Maybe something along
Quoth Tomi Ollila on Oct 23 at 10:05 pm:
On Thu, Oct 10 2013, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Tomi Ollila tomi.oll...@iki.fi writes:
I'm not opposed to doing an SONAME bump for 0.17. Are there other ABI
breaking changes that we have been holding back on? Can these maybe go
On Wed, Oct 23 2013, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
Quoth Tomi Ollila on Oct 23 at 10:05 pm:
On Thu, Oct 10 2013, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Tomi Ollila tomi.oll...@iki.fi writes:
I'm not opposed to doing an SONAME bump for 0.17. Are there other ABI
breaking changes
Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu writes:
And in libnotmuch, we would do something like
notmuch_status_t
notmuch_database_open (const char *path,
notmuch_database_mode_t mode,
const notmuch_options_t *options,
On Thu, Oct 10 2013, David Bremner wrote:
> Peter Wang writes:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:06:00 +0100, Mark Walters > gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alternatively maybe add notmuch_database_destroy_with_flush or something
>>> which does give a return value. notmuch_database_close is only called 3
Tomi Ollila writes:
>> I'm not opposed to doing an SONAME bump for 0.17. Are there other ABI
>> breaking changes that we have been holding back on? Can these maybe go
>> through at the same time?
>
> Maybe something along these lines...
>
> (Quick draft for the API part; to start discussion
Peter Wang writes:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:06:00 +0100, Mark Walters gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Alternatively maybe add notmuch_database_destroy_with_flush or something
>> which does give a return value. notmuch_database_close is only called 3
>> times and notmuch_database_destroy lots of times
Peter Wang noval...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:06:00 +0100, Mark Walters markwalters1...@gmail.com
wrote:
Alternatively maybe add notmuch_database_destroy_with_flush or something
which does give a return value. notmuch_database_close is only called 3
times and
On Thu, Oct 10 2013, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Peter Wang noval...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:06:00 +0100, Mark Walters markwalters1...@gmail.com
wrote:
Alternatively maybe add notmuch_database_destroy_with_flush or something
which does give a return value.
Tomi Ollila tomi.oll...@iki.fi writes:
I'm not opposed to doing an SONAME bump for 0.17. Are there other ABI
breaking changes that we have been holding back on? Can these maybe go
through at the same time?
Maybe something along these lines...
(Quick draft for the API part; to start
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:06:00 +0100, Mark Walters
wrote:
>
> Alternatively maybe add notmuch_database_destroy_with_flush or something
> which does give a return value. notmuch_database_close is only called 3
> times and notmuch_database_destroy lots of times so changing close is
> much less
Hi
>> Do you have a particular use case where indexing is required but tagging
>> is not? For my uses I would prefer failing if either indexing or tagging
>> failed. (My use being postponing messages; If they don't get the
>> postponed tag they could be hard to find)
>
> You're right.
>
> What
Hi
Do you have a particular use case where indexing is required but tagging
is not? For my uses I would prefer failing if either indexing or tagging
failed. (My use being postponing messages; If they don't get the
postponed tag they could be hard to find)
You're right.
What about a
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 09:31:28 +0100, Mark Walters
wrote:
>
> Do you have a particular use case where indexing is required but tagging
> is not? For my uses I would prefer failing if either indexing or tagging
> failed. (My use being postponing messages; If they don't get the
> postponed tag they
This option causes notmuch insert to fail as a whole if the message
failed to be added to the notmuch database. The new message file
will be deleted from disk, and a distinct status code (2) returned.
---
notmuch-insert.c | 76 ++--
1 file
Do you have a particular use case where indexing is required but tagging
is not? For my uses I would prefer failing if either indexing or tagging
failed. (My use being postponing messages; If they don't get the
postponed tag they could be hard to find)
Best wishes
Mark
Peter Wang writes:
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
