On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> I'm thinking of documenting/implementing this such that the
> _flags_to_tags function merges (as a logical OR) the set of flags from
> all filenames for a given email message, and then computes tags from the
> final set. This does assume a particular kind
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:51:28 +0100, Michal Sojka wrote:
> Does this mean, that if I want to remove the replied tag (for example) I
> can still do it by manipulating flags, i.e. I would remove the R flag
> from all messages with the coreposnding Message-ID? Or does it mean that
> the only way is
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:48:54 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> > Great. I've finished the additional tests, which I send as a reply to
> > this mail. Some test are marked as broken because I do not want to touch
> > C sources while you are woking on them.
>
> Thanks!
I've now got these tests merged in
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> > This only fails if the message is in */new and there is no */cur.
>
> Right. I think that's a little too severe.
>
> > I do not know if MH format has something special or it is just plain
> > files in plain directories. If the latter, the synchronzation
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:26:40 +0100, Michal Sojka wrote:
> > So maybe we will need a new function for the purpose of synchronizing
> > the current tags of a message to a maildir filename. So that would be,
> > perhaps, notmuch_message_tags_to_maildir_flags or so?
>
> This sounds good and allows
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> The updating I've done here only goes as far as just before "Add a
> message to new/ without info". And it looks like one change I made
> inadvertently broke a later test, so it's expected that "Check that
> removing info did not change tags" currently
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:26:40 +0100, Michal Sojka sojk...@fel.cvut.cz wrote:
So maybe we will need a new function for the purpose of synchronizing
the current tags of a message to a maildir filename. So that would be,
perhaps, notmuch_message_tags_to_maildir_flags or so?
This sounds good
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:39:31 +0100, Michal Sojka wrote:
> Did you try ./maildyr-sync -v?
Ah, no. That's always seemed really noisy. What I want is simply to see
the information related to a failure *when a failure occurs*, and not a
lot of noise, (nor having to re-run with extra options to see
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:06:30 +0100, Michal Sojka wrote:
> This sounds good. Still it will be neccessary to synchronize with all
> files, not only the first one.
OK. I'll add that to the list of things I'll fix up.
> > I'd like to get things merged today, so I plan to take your patches and
> >
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 02:46:08 +0100, Michal Sojka
> wrote:
> > The current implementation renames only the file whose name is stored
> > first in the database. I have a TODO comment there to add a loop through
> > all file names, but I have never realized
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
The updating I've done here only goes as far as just before Add a
message to new/ without info. And it looks like one change I made
inadvertently broke a later test, so it's expected that Check that
removing info did not change tags currently fails. [And
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 02:46:08 +0100, Michal Sojka wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> > I'm not entirely sure I like a big, global state-changing function like
> > that in the library. But if we do want to have that, we need to fix the
> > documentation of all functions that are
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 02:46:08 +0100, Michal Sojka sojk...@fel.cvut.cz wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
I'm not entirely sure I like a big, global state-changing function like
that in the library. But if we do want to have that, we need to fix the
documentation of all functions
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> Meanwhile, here are some of the things I'm still thinking about in
> regards to this patch. First, the commit message describes the
> synchronization happening at "notmuch new" and "notmuch tag/notmuch
> restore". But the implementation shows that the
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
Meanwhile, here are some of the things I'm still thinking about in
regards to this patch. First, the commit message describes the
synchronization happening at notmuch new and notmuch tag/notmuch
restore. But the implementation shows that the functionality
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 22:29:14 +0100, Michal Sojka wrote:
> This is the next iteration of maildir synchronization patches. The
> changes are:
> - Configuration is now simplified. The synchronization can only be
> full enabled or disabled. By default it is still disabled.
> - Added test for
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 22:29:14 +0100, Michal Sojka sojk...@fel.cvut.cz wrote:
This is the next iteration of maildir synchronization patches. The
changes are:
- Configuration is now simplified. The synchronization can only be
full enabled or disabled. By default it is still disabled.
- Added
This is the next iteration of maildir synchronization patches. The
changes are:
- Configuration is now simplified. The synchronization can only be
full enabled or disabled. By default it is still disabled.
- Added test for notmuch restore (with enabled synchronization)
- Rebased to the current
18 matches
Mail list logo
