Re: Do path: searches handle spaces correctly?
Keith Amidon cama...@picnicpark.org writes: What do you think about adding a section to the notmuch-search-terms web page that talks in more detail about the quoting interactions? If there were on obvious section about this in the man page it might have helped me find the issue myself. If this seems like a good idea I'll take a crack at it later this week when I get time to research the Xapian quoting in a bit more detail. Yes, it makes sense to add such a section. d ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH] Add configurable changed tag to messages that have been changed on disk
22. sep. 2014 17:40 skrev Austin Clements acleme...@csail.mit.edu følgende: On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Gaute Hope e...@gaute.vetsj.com wrote: Excerpts from Gaute Hope's message of August 6, 2014 10:29: Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote on Fri, 01 Aug 2014 14:55:05 -0400: I have a prototype implementation of message modification times on my lastmod-v1 branch at https://github.com/aclements/notmuch/tree/lastmod-v1 It builds on my database features series that's currently awaiting review [1]. The series uses a monotonic revision number, rather than wall-clock time, for reasons related to Xapian's concurrent control and detailed in the main commit's commit message. The implementation isn't quite useful from the CLI yet because I haven't added any way to query the database's current revision number. (I'm still thinking about how I want to do this, since search/show don't have a good way to deliver additional information right now. I might just add the last modification for each individual message/max of all messages in a thread, similar to what Thomas Jost's patch did long ago.) [1] id:1406859003-11561-1-git-send-email-amdra...@mit.edu this should allow me to do what I wish to accomplish. The message deletion is still a problem though, I can see two options at the moment: Hi list, While exploring the possibility of syncing maildir/X-keywords with tags I had some thoughts about lastmod and message modification: As briefly discussed on #notmuch, I noticed that it seems that 'notmuch new' does not detect that a message source has been changed, unless the file is also re-named. This means that for instance if the X-Keywords fields have been updated in a message (from GMail with offlineimap, synclabels = yes) the lastmod field will remain unchanged, and a source modification will be undetectable to a client program using this value. Would it not make sense that if a message has a more recent mtime than at index time it is re-indexed? This has the potential to make notmuch new substantially more expensive. Currently, if there are no changes, it only has to stat each directory in your maildir (in fact, some restructuring of new would let us eliminate almost all database access during a no-op notmuch new as well). Checking for changes to individual messages would require stat'ing every single message file as well as accessing the database to check the paths and mtimes of every message, increasing the number of stat calls and disk accesses by several orders of magnitude. It may be that this is fast enough that it's okay, but it would be good to gather some evidence first. That includes hot and cold caches, and maildir over NFS. With respect to X-Keywords specifically, note that it's a fairly basic design decision that notmuch never modifies message files. This gives us strong robustness guarantees we would be loathe to part with. It has puzzled me ever since offlineimap added X-Keywords why they didn't just translate these keywords into folders and create hard links of message files. Anything could interact smoothly with that. The information follows the message file. But, yeah, working directly on the message source is hairy. Anyway, email is as mess in general anyway. I consider it user-input. Also, for the lastmod branch I would wish for a notmuch_message_touch() method where the lastmod time is updated to the last. As well as a notmuch_database_reindex_message () - possibly defined/documented behaviour for notmuch_database_add_message () when the filename is already added (in which case I would expect notmuch to re-index the message). What's the use case for these? If you make a change to the message source and want it to be reindexed. Say, edited a draft or changed a header field. I am not asking that notmuch modifies the message source. For _touch, if without making an actual change to the message you wish to indicate that it has been updated or synced at the current time. For instance after an reindex that did not make any actual change. Perhaps not strictly necessary. Cheers, Gaute ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH 03/11] emacs: Fix coding system in `notmuch-show-view-raw-message'
Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu writes: This fixes the known-broken test of viewing 8bit messages added by the previous commit. I pushed the first 3 patches in the series. d ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
[PATCH] potential fix for nmbug merge problems
---
scripts/nmbug | 5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
This seems to fix the problems with merges failing on dirty indexes.
I didn't have time to trace through all of the ramifications, but it
seems to me by doing a merge with the default index, we are getting
some kind of random state (or maybe the state of the last merge).
I'll have to road test this a bit more to be sure it's a fix, but maybe you can
think about whether it's the righ thing (TM) to do in any case.
diff --git a/scripts/nmbug b/scripts/nmbug
index 77bec64..47e4ee8 100755
--- a/scripts/nmbug
+++ b/scripts/nmbug
@@ -457,10 +457,13 @@ def merge(reference='@{upstream}'):
The default reference is '@{upstream}'.
_insist_committed()
+path = _os.path.join(NMBGIT, 'nmbug.index')
+
with _tempfile.TemporaryDirectory(prefix='nmbug-merge.') as workdir:
_git(
args=['merge', reference],
-additional_env={'GIT_WORK_TREE': workdir},
+additional_env={'GIT_WORK_TREE': workdir,
+'GIT_INDEX_FILE': path},
wait=True)
checkout()
--
2.1.0
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Do path: searches handle spaces correctly?
Keith Amidon writes: > > What do you think about adding a section to the notmuch-search-terms web > page that talks in more detail about the quoting interactions? If there > were on obvious section about this in the man page it might have helped > me find the issue myself. If this seems like a good idea I'll take a > crack at it later this week when I get time to research the Xapian > quoting in a bit more detail. Yes, it makes sense to add such a section. d
[PATCH] Add configurable changed tag to messages that have been changed on disk
22. sep. 2014 17:40 skrev "Austin Clements" f?lgende: > > On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Gaute Hope wrote: > > Excerpts from Gaute Hope's message of August 6, 2014 10:29: > >> Austin Clements wrote on Fri, 01 Aug 2014 14:55:05 -0400: > >>> I have a prototype implementation of message modification times on my > >>> lastmod-v1 branch at > >>> > >>> https://github.com/aclements/notmuch/tree/lastmod-v1 > >>> > >>> It builds on my database features series that's currently awaiting > >>> review [1]. > >>> > >>> The series uses a monotonic revision number, rather than wall-clock > >>> time, for reasons related to Xapian's concurrent control and detailed > >>> in the main commit's commit message. The implementation isn't quite > >>> useful from the CLI yet because I haven't added any way to query the > >>> database's current revision number. (I'm still thinking about how I > >>> want to do this, since search/show don't have a good way to deliver > >>> "additional" information right now. I might just add the last > >>> modification for each individual message/max of all messages in a > >>> thread, similar to what Thomas Jost's patch did long ago.) > >>> > >>> [1] id:1406859003-11561-1-git-send-email-amdragon at mit.edu > > > >> this should allow me to do what I wish to accomplish. The message > >> deletion is still a problem though, I can see two options at the moment: > > > > Hi list, > > > > While exploring the possibility of syncing maildir/X-keywords with tags > > I had some thoughts about lastmod and message modification: > > > > As briefly discussed on #notmuch, I noticed that it seems that 'notmuch > > new' does not detect that a message source has been changed, unless the > > file is also re-named. > > > > This means that for instance if the X-Keywords fields have been updated > > in a message (from GMail with offlineimap, synclabels = yes) the lastmod > > field will remain unchanged, and a source modification will be > > undetectable to a client program using this value. > > > > Would it not make sense that if a message has a more recent mtime than > > at index time it is re-indexed? > > This has the potential to make notmuch new substantially more expensive. > Currently, if there are no changes, it only has to stat each directory > in your maildir (in fact, some restructuring of new would let us > eliminate almost all database access during a no-op notmuch new as > well). Checking for changes to individual messages would require > stat'ing every single message file as well as accessing the database to > check the paths and mtimes of every message, increasing the number of > stat calls and disk accesses by several orders of magnitude. > > It may be that this is fast enough that it's okay, but it would be good > to gather some evidence first. That includes hot and cold caches, and > maildir over NFS. > > With respect to X-Keywords specifically, note that it's a fairly basic > design decision that notmuch never modifies message files. This gives > us strong robustness guarantees we would be loathe to part with. > > It has puzzled me ever since offlineimap added X-Keywords why they > didn't just translate these keywords into folders and create hard links > of message files. Anything could interact smoothly with that. The information follows the message file. But, yeah, working directly on the message source is hairy. Anyway, email is as mess in general anyway. I consider it user-input. > > > Also, for the lastmod branch I would wish for a notmuch_message_touch() > > method where the lastmod time is updated to the last. As well as a > > notmuch_database_reindex_message () - possibly defined/documented > > behaviour for notmuch_database_add_message () when the filename is > > already added (in which case I would expect notmuch to re-index the > > message). > > What's the use case for these? If you make a change to the message source and want it to be reindexed. Say, edited a draft or changed a header field. I am not asking that notmuch modifies the message source. For _touch, if without making an actual change to the message you wish to indicate that it has been updated or synced at the current time. For instance after an reindex that did not make any actual change. Perhaps not strictly necessary. Cheers, Gaute -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20140923/54ff8117/attachment.html>
[PATCH] python: Add binding for notmuch_query_add_tag_exclude
Quoting David Bremner (2014-09-20 07:15:02) > Thibaut Horel writes: > > > Implemented as the method `exclude_tag` of the class `Query`. This method > > takes > > one argument, a string containing the name of the tag to exclude > > This tag looks pretty trivial. I'll merge it unless I hear some > objections over the weekend. It looks fine indeed, thanks to the both of you. The only tricky thing I remember is the py2/py3 string/unicode thing, for which I seem to have created the _str function, so it should be fine indeed. Justus
[PATCH] python: Add binding for notmuch_query_add_tag_exclude
Thibaut Horel writes: > Implemented as the method `exclude_tag` of the class `Query`. This > method takes one argument, a string containing the name of the tag to > exclude pushed, thanks d
[PATCH 03/11] emacs: Fix coding system in `notmuch-show-view-raw-message'
Austin Clements writes: > This fixes the known-broken test of viewing 8bit messages added by the > previous commit. I pushed the first 3 patches in the series. d
[PATCH] potential fix for nmbug merge problems
---
scripts/nmbug | 5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
This seems to fix the problems with merges failing on dirty indexes.
I didn't have time to trace through all of the ramifications, but it
seems to me by doing a merge with the default index, we are getting
some kind of random state (or maybe the state of the last merge).
I'll have to road test this a bit more to be sure it's a fix, but maybe you can
think about whether it's the righ thing (TM) to do in any case.
diff --git a/scripts/nmbug b/scripts/nmbug
index 77bec64..47e4ee8 100755
--- a/scripts/nmbug
+++ b/scripts/nmbug
@@ -457,10 +457,13 @@ def merge(reference='@{upstream}'):
The default reference is '@{upstream}'.
"""
_insist_committed()
+path = _os.path.join(NMBGIT, 'nmbug.index')
+
with _tempfile.TemporaryDirectory(prefix='nmbug-merge.') as workdir:
_git(
args=['merge', reference],
-additional_env={'GIT_WORK_TREE': workdir},
+additional_env={'GIT_WORK_TREE': workdir,
+'GIT_INDEX_FILE': path},
wait=True)
checkout()
--
2.1.0
