On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, David Bremner wrote:
> We want to return an error status, not 0 or (worse) segfault.
> ---
> notmuch-show.c| 6 +-
> test/T520-show.sh | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/notmuch-show.c b/notmuch-show.c
> index 528694b..b162738 1
Clarify that using the directory after destroying the corresponding
database is not permitted.
This is implicit in the description of notmuch_database_destroy, but
it doesn't hurt to be explicit, and we do express similar "ownership"
relationships at other places in the docs.
---
lib/notmuch.h |
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, David Bremner wrote:
> Without this patch, the example code in the header docs crashes for certain
> invalid queries (see id:871u00oimv.fsf at approx.mit.edu)
> ---
> lib/notmuch.h | 2 ++
> lib/query.cc | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/notmuc
Justus Winter <4winter at informatik.uni-hamburg.de> writes:
> #0 0x7f996ad021d5 in __GI_raise (sig=sig at entry=6) at
> ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:56
> 56 ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c: No such file or directory.
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x7f996ad021d5 in __GI_raise
Sanjoy Mahajan writes:
> Probably because I kept using notmuch-emacs .elc code from 0.16 after
> notmuch got upgraded to 0.17 (I rarely restart emacs), my Emacs
> interface to notmuch started generating queries that caused Xapian
> exceptions and segfaults. Here's one:
>
> $ notmuch show '( FW
On Thu, Jan 23 2014, Mark Walters wrote:
> This looks good and works (tested without patch 2/3). I don't have a
> view on whether we should do the second patch or just update the docs.
Looks good. for patch #2 I'd check which one is more consistent
with other code constructs used & library inter
Jani Nikula writes:
>
> This should just return 1 or something. See how the function eventually
> returns res != NOTMUCH_STATUS_SUCCESS instead of notmuch_status_t. And
> threads == NULL is not guaranteed to mean an exception occurred anyway.
>
> Otherwise the patch LGTM, and is in line with the e
On Fri, Jan 24 2014, David Bremner wrote:
> From: Mark Walters
>
> The unread/read changes will use the post-command-hook. test_emacs
> does not call the post-command-hook. This adds a notmuch-test-progn
> which takes a list of commands as argument and executes them in turn
> but runs the post-c
Austin Clements writes:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2014, Jani Nikula wrote:
>
> I strongly disagree with requiring the cur/new component. The cur/new
> directory is an internal implementation detail of Maildir (and a rather
> broken one at that) and no more a part of the "folder" of a piece of
> mail tha
Clarify that using the directory after destroying the corresponding
database is not permitted.
This is implicit in the description of notmuch_database_destroy, but
it doesn't hurt to be explicit, and we do express similar "ownership"
relationships at other places in the docs.
---
lib/notmuch.h |
Justus Winter <4win...@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> writes:
> #0 0x7f996ad021d5 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at
> ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:56
> 56 ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c: No such file or directory.
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x7f996ad021d5 in __GI_raise (sig=s
Hi :)
Quoting David Bremner (2014-01-24 14:17:27)
> Justus Winter <4winter at informatik.uni-hamburg.de> writes:
>
> > Quoting Justus Winter (2011-12-07 19:49:31)
>
> > And another one:
> [stack trace snipped]
> > #69 0x004e10be in PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags (fp=0xb99c10,
> > filename=, cl
Sanjoy Mahajan writes:
> Probably because I kept using notmuch-emacs .elc code from 0.16 after
> notmuch got upgraded to 0.17 (I rarely restart emacs), my Emacs
> interface to notmuch started generating queries that caused Xapian
> exceptions and segfaults. Here's one:
>
> $ notmuch show '( FW
On Thu, Jan 23 2014, Mark Walters wrote:
>> What do you think about this alternate version? it allows
>> notmuch-test-progn to have the same syntax as progn. It seems about
>> the same level of complexity to me; fwiw I prefer the let over the
>> dolist/setq.
>
> This looks much nicer: a macro is
Jani Nikula writes:
>
> This should just return 1 or something. See how the function eventually
> returns res != NOTMUCH_STATUS_SUCCESS instead of notmuch_status_t. And
> threads == NULL is not guaranteed to mean an exception occurred anyway.
>
> Otherwise the patch LGTM, and is in line with the e
This is the other reason I disagree with including cur/new. If we strip
it, people's existing folder: searches will mostly continue to work. If
we include it, such saved searches, scripted searches, and post-new
hooks are guaranteed to break.
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014, Jani Nikula wrote:
> folder: is
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014, Jani Nikula wrote:
> In xapian terms, convert folder: prefix from probabilistic to boolean
> prefix. This change constitutes a database change: bump the database
> version and add database upgrade support.
> ---
> lib/database.cc | 39 -
> lib/message.cc
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Hi all, this series makes the folder: search prefix literal, or switches
> it from a probabilistic prefix to a boolean prefix. With this, you have
> to give the path from the maildir root to the folder you want in full,
> including the maildir cur/new comp
Austin Clements writes:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2014, Jani Nikula wrote:
>
> I strongly disagree with requiring the cur/new component. The cur/new
> directory is an internal implementation detail of Maildir (and a rather
> broken one at that) and no more a part of the "folder" of a piece of
> mail tha
This is the other reason I disagree with including cur/new. If we strip
it, people's existing folder: searches will mostly continue to work. If
we include it, such saved searches, scripted searches, and post-new
hooks are guaranteed to break.
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014, Jani Nikula wrote:
> folder: is
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014, Jani Nikula wrote:
> In xapian terms, convert folder: prefix from probabilistic to boolean
> prefix. This change constitutes a database change: bump the database
> version and add database upgrade support.
> ---
> lib/database.cc | 39 -
> lib/message.cc
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Hi all, this series makes the folder: search prefix literal, or switches
> it from a probabilistic prefix to a boolean prefix. With this, you have
> to give the path from the maildir root to the folder you want in full,
> including the maildir cur/new comp
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, David Bremner wrote:
> We want to return an error status, not 0 or (worse) segfault.
> ---
> notmuch-show.c| 6 +-
> test/T520-show.sh | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/notmuch-show.c b/notmuch-show.c
> index 528694b..b162738 1
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, David Bremner wrote:
> Without this patch, the example code in the header docs crashes for certain
> invalid queries (see id:871u00oimv@approx.mit.edu)
> ---
> lib/notmuch.h | 2 ++
> lib/query.cc | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/notmuch.h
From: Mark Walters
The unread/read changes will use the post-command-hook. test_emacs
does not call the post-command-hook. This adds a notmuch-test-progn
which takes a list of commands as argument and executes them in turn
but runs the post-command-hook after each one.
The caller can batch opera
On Thu, Jan 23 2014, David Bremner wrote:
> Although we didn't formally deprecate the old format, the new one has
> been available for a year.
> ---
These 2 patches LGTM +1
Tomi
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Mark Walters wrote:
> I am not sure I like doing the database upgrade with no comment to the
> user at all.
I think --quiet should mean we don't write to stdout at all. So the
question becomes, is the database upgrade worth warning about in stderr?
> In fact I am not sure I
On Thu, Jan 23 2014, Mark Walters wrote:
> This looks good and works (tested without patch 2/3). I don't have a
> view on whether we should do the second patch or just update the docs.
Looks good. for patch #2 I'd check which one is more consistent
with other code constructs used & library inter
On Fri, Jan 24 2014, David Bremner wrote:
> From: Mark Walters
>
> The unread/read changes will use the post-command-hook. test_emacs
> does not call the post-command-hook. This adds a notmuch-test-progn
> which takes a list of commands as argument and executes them in turn
> but runs the post-c
Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
> The attached gzipped mbox appears to trip up the emacs interface. The
> problem seems to come from the message with id
> CAGNsrLCWv6=36q+q+5Hc_SzgdZ2ergeKkapT7T3xXvim=2cK+A at mail.gmail.com.
>
I can't reproduce this bug in current git, so I'm going to assume
some
Mark Walters writes:
> Hi
>
> I have looked at this and I think this is not notmuch's fault: I think
> it is a mua doing strange things:
>
> One of the mails has an in-reply-to header which looks like
>
> In-reply-to: Message from Carsten Dominik of
> "Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:18:51 BST."
Patrick Totzke writes:
> This commit breaks raising XapianErrors for me.
>
> If I lock the index with some `notmuch tag +test '*'`
> and try to write to it in alot, i get a segfault and
> the following on stderr:
>
> Xapian exception occurred opening database: Unable to get write lock on
> /home/
Justus Winter <4winter at informatik.uni-hamburg.de> writes:
> Quoting Justus Winter (2011-12-07 19:49:31)
> And another one:
[stack trace snipped]
> #69 0x004e10be in PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags (fp=0xb99c10,
> filename=, closeit=1, flags=0x7fffc13a1f60) at
> ../Python/pythonrun.c:936
> #7
Tomi Ollila writes:
> On Thu, Jan 23 2014, David Bremner wrote:
>
>> Although we didn't formally deprecate the old format, the new one has
>> been available for a year.
>> ---
>
> These 2 patches LGTM +1
>
> Tomi
Pushed.
d
Hi
I am working my way through this series in a rather random order.
I am not sure I like doing the database upgrade with no comment to the
user at all. In fact I am not sure I like doing the upgrade without
being specifically told to (e.g. it does not give the user a clear chance
to backup the
Hi :)
Quoting David Bremner (2014-01-24 14:17:27)
> Justus Winter <4win...@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> writes:
>
> > Quoting Justus Winter (2011-12-07 19:49:31)
>
> > And another one:
> [stack trace snipped]
> > #69 0x004e10be in PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags (fp=0xb99c10,
> > filename=, close
From: Mark Walters
The unread/read changes will use the post-command-hook. test_emacs
does not call the post-command-hook. This adds a notmuch-test-progn
which takes a list of commands as argument and executes them in turn
but runs the post-command-hook after each one.
The caller can batch opera
On Thu, Jan 23 2014, Mark Walters wrote:
>> What do you think about this alternate version? it allows
>> notmuch-test-progn to have the same syntax as progn. It seems about
>> the same level of complexity to me; fwiw I prefer the let over the
>> dolist/setq.
>
> This looks much nicer: a macro is
Michael Hudson-Doyle writes:
> The attached gzipped mbox appears to trip up the emacs interface. The
> problem seems to come from the message with id
> CAGNsrLCWv6=36q+q+5Hc_SzgdZ2ergeKkapT7T3xXvim=2c...@mail.gmail.com.
>
I can't reproduce this bug in current git, so I'm going to assume
somethi
Mark Walters writes:
> Hi
>
> I have looked at this and I think this is not notmuch's fault: I think
> it is a mua doing strange things:
>
> One of the mails has an in-reply-to header which looks like
>
> In-reply-to: Message from Carsten Dominik of
> "Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:18:51 BST."
Patrick Totzke writes:
> This commit breaks raising XapianErrors for me.
>
> If I lock the index with some `notmuch tag +test '*'`
> and try to write to it in alot, i get a segfault and
> the following on stderr:
>
> Xapian exception occurred opening database: Unable to get write lock on
> /home/
Justus Winter <4win...@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> writes:
> Quoting Justus Winter (2011-12-07 19:49:31)
> And another one:
[stack trace snipped]
> #69 0x004e10be in PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags (fp=0xb99c10,
> filename=, closeit=1, flags=0x7fffc13a1f60) at
> ../Python/pythonrun.c:936
> #70 0
Tomi Ollila writes:
> On Thu, Jan 23 2014, David Bremner wrote:
>
>> Although we didn't formally deprecate the old format, the new one has
>> been available for a year.
>> ---
>
> These 2 patches LGTM +1
>
> Tomi
Pushed.
d
___
notmuch mailing list
n
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Mark Walters wrote:
> I am not sure I like doing the database upgrade with no comment to the
> user at all.
I think --quiet should mean we don't write to stdout at all. So the
question becomes, is the database upgrade worth warning about in stderr?
> In fact I am not sure I
On Thu, Jan 23 2014, David Bremner wrote:
> Although we didn't formally deprecate the old format, the new one has
> been available for a year.
> ---
These 2 patches LGTM +1
Tomi
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/
Hi
I am working my way through this series in a rather random order.
I am not sure I like doing the database upgrade with no comment to the
user at all. In fact I am not sure I like doing the upgrade without
being specifically told to (e.g. it does not give the user a clear chance
to backup the
46 matches
Mail list logo
