Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] added notmuch_message_reindex

Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > +const char *autotags[] = { > + "attachment", > + "encrypted", > + "signed", > + "index-decrypted", > + "index-decryption-failed" }; Hmm. Is this really the

Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] added notmuch_message_reindex

Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > > I think when a message is removed from the database, we need to know > whether anything else (in its same thread?) refers to it. If so, we > should keep it around as a ghost message instead of fully removing it. > > does this sound like

Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] added notmuch_message_reindex

On Tue 2016-02-09 20:01:43 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> I just wanted to mention that I think there's a problem with the reindex >> functionality introduced in this patch (or in 16/16). It looks like >> this function irrevocably busts apart threads. dkg and I are >> investigating. > > it

Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] added notmuch_message_reindex

On Tue 2016-02-09 19:41:01 -0500, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31 2016, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> This new function asks the database to reindex a given message, using >> the supplied indexopts. >> >> This can be used, for example, to index the cleartext

Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] added notmuch_message_reindex

On Sun, Jan 31 2016, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > This new function asks the database to reindex a given message, using > the supplied indexopts. > > This can be used, for example, to index the cleartext of an encrypted > message. I just wanted to mention that I think

[PATCH v3 15/16] added notmuch_message_reindex

This new function asks the database to reindex a given message, using the supplied indexopts. This can be used, for example, to index the cleartext of an encrypted message. --- lib/message.cc | 91 +- lib/notmuch.h | 14 + 2 files