In order to handle message renames the following changes were deemed necessary:
* Mtime check on individual files was disabled. As files may be moved around
without changing their mtime, it's necessary to parse them even if they appear
old in case old message was moved. mtime check on directories
Twas brillig at 07:40:15 26.11.2009 UTC-08 when cworth at cworth.org did gyre
and gimble:
CW> I *really* want this patch in, since I think a lot of current users
CW> would really benefit from it. I only see one big problem with it:
Did you test the performance hit caused by disabling mtime ch
In order to handle message renames the following changes were deemed necessary:
* Mtime check on individual files was disabled. As files may be moved around
without changing their mtime, it's necessary to parse them even if they appear
old in case old message was moved. mtime check on directories
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:38:49 +0600, Mikhail Gusarov
wrote:
>
> Twas brillig at 07:40:15 26.11.2009 UTC-08 when cwo...@cworth.org did gyre
> and gimble:
>
> CW> I *really* want this patch in, since I think a lot of current users
> CW> would really benefit from it. I only see one big problem w
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:38:49 +0600, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
>
> Twas brillig at 07:40:15 26.11.2009 UTC-08 when cworth at cworth.org did gyre
> and gimble:
>
> CW> I *really* want this patch in, since I think a lot of current users
> CW> would really benefit from it. I only see one big problem
Twas brillig at 07:40:15 26.11.2009 UTC-08 when cwo...@cworth.org did gyre and
gimble:
CW> I *really* want this patch in, since I think a lot of current users
CW> would really benefit from it. I only see one big problem with it:
Did you test the performance hit caused by disabling mtime check
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:13:25 +0600, Mikhail Gusarov
wrote:
> In order to handle message renames the following changes were deemed
> necessary:
Hi Mikhail,
I *really* want this patch in, since I think a lot of current users
would really benefit from it. I only see one big problem with it:
> Not
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:13:25 +0600, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> In order to handle message renames the following changes were deemed
> necessary:
Hi Mikhail,
I *really* want this patch in, since I think a lot of current users
would really benefit from it. I only see one big problem with it:
> Note
In order to handle message renames the following changes were deemed necessary:
* Mtime check on individual files was disabled. As files may be moved around
without changing their mtime, it's necessary to parse them even if they appear
old in case old message was moved. mtime check on directories