[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:01:47 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> Quoth Sebastian Spaeth on Sep 28 at 6:36 pm:
> > db.find_message_by_filename("moo")
> > Internal error: Failure to ensure database is writable
> > (lib/directory.cc:100).
> It appears that looking up a directory requires a writable database
> because notmuch will try to *create* a database document for the
> directory if one doesn't already exist. This is clearly wrong
> behavior for a "find" function.
First of all, I consider libnotmuch exiting, taking python down, an
outright bug. So we should modify this case to return:
NOTMUCH_STATUS_READ_ONLY_DATABASE
so I can at least give some sensible error than having an angry mob run
with pitchforks towards me.
Ideally, we don't need READ-WRITE dbs for the find :-)
As it is, the same issue happens with the
notmuch_database_get_directory call, which should be protected in the
same manner (and probably has the same root cause). It is debatable
whether get_directory should be creating a directory on demand, I guess,
but it should never crash.
I have documented this in the python bindings, so it's not super urgent.
But it's dangerous and wrong nonetheless.
Sebastian
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:01:47 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: Quoth Sebastian Spaeth on Sep 28 at 6:36 pm: db.find_message_by_filename(moo) Internal error: Failure to ensure database is writable (lib/directory.cc:100). It appears that looking up a directory requires a writable database because notmuch will try to *create* a database document for the directory if one doesn't already exist. This is clearly wrong behavior for a find function. First of all, I consider libnotmuch exiting, taking python down, an outright bug. So we should modify this case to return: NOTMUCH_STATUS_READ_ONLY_DATABASE so I can at least give some sensible error than having an angry mob run with pitchforks towards me. Ideally, we don't need READ-WRITE dbs for the find :-) As it is, the same issue happens with the notmuch_database_get_directory call, which should be protected in the same manner (and probably has the same root cause). It is debatable whether get_directory should be creating a directory on demand, I guess, but it should never crash. I have documented this in the python bindings, so it's not super urgent. But it's dangerous and wrong nonetheless. Sebastian pgpB73zrYUUlp.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Quoth Sebastian Spaeth on Sep 28 at 6:36 pm:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:04:26 -0400, Austin Clements
> wrote:
> > Here's the reworked patch series that uses atomic sections more
> > heavily rather than changing the removal API. This is atomic-new-v6
> > on http://awakening.csail.mit.edu/git/notmuch.git .
>
> I just caught up implementing find_message_by_filename and
> begin|end_atomic
>
> One oddity, since databases are opened in read-only by default, I was
> surprise to see find_message_by_filename on such a database have my
> python instance crash...
>
> > lib: Add an API to find a message by filename.
> > Culled from "lib: Add API's to find by filename and ..." in the old
> > series. What I kept is identical.
>
> db.find_message_by_filename("moo")
> Internal error: Failure to ensure database is writable
> (lib/directory.cc:100).
>
> Outch?
Oof.
It appears that looking up a directory requires a writable database
because notmuch will try to *create* a database document for the
directory if one doesn't already exist. This is clearly wrong
behavior for a "find" function.
The exact code path is
notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename
_notmuch_database_filename_to_direntry
_notmuch_database_find_directory_id
_notmuch_directory_create
_notmuch_message_add_filename currently depends on
_notmuch_database_filename_to_direntry to create the directory
document if it doesn't exist. Possibly
_notmuch_database_filename_to_direntry,
_notmuch_database_find_directory_id, and _notmuch_directory_create
should acquire a flags argument with a "create" flag that controls
this behavior.
Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Quoth Sebastian Spaeth on Sep 28 at 6:36 pm: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:04:26 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: Here's the reworked patch series that uses atomic sections more heavily rather than changing the removal API. This is atomic-new-v6 on http://awakening.csail.mit.edu/git/notmuch.git . I just caught up implementing find_message_by_filename and begin|end_atomic One oddity, since databases are opened in read-only by default, I was surprise to see find_message_by_filename on such a database have my python instance crash... lib: Add an API to find a message by filename. Culled from lib: Add API's to find by filename and ... in the old series. What I kept is identical. db.find_message_by_filename(moo) Internal error: Failure to ensure database is writable (lib/directory.cc:100). Outch? Oof. It appears that looking up a directory requires a writable database because notmuch will try to *create* a database document for the directory if one doesn't already exist. This is clearly wrong behavior for a find function. The exact code path is notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename _notmuch_database_filename_to_direntry _notmuch_database_find_directory_id _notmuch_directory_create _notmuch_message_add_filename currently depends on _notmuch_database_filename_to_direntry to create the directory document if it doesn't exist. Possibly _notmuch_database_filename_to_direntry, _notmuch_database_find_directory_id, and _notmuch_directory_create should acquire a flags argument with a create flag that controls this behavior. ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:04:26 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> Here's the reworked patch series that uses atomic sections more
> heavily rather than changing the removal API. This is atomic-new-v6
> on http://awakening.csail.mit.edu/git/notmuch.git .
I just caught up implementing find_message_by_filename and
begin|end_atomic
One oddity, since databases are opened in read-only by default, I was
surprise to see find_message_by_filename on such a database have my
python instance crash...
> lib: Add an API to find a message by filename.
> Culled from "lib: Add API's to find by filename and ..." in the old
> series. What I kept is identical.
db.find_message_by_filename("moo")
Internal error: Failure to ensure database is writable
(lib/directory.cc:100).
Outch?
Sebastian
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Quoth David Bremner on Sep 24 at 11:36 pm: > On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:03:02 -0400, Austin Clements > wrote: > > > > Awesome. Only seven more to go! > > The remaining seven are pushed, along with some related debian packaging > things. Huzzah! > Austin, could I bug you for some atomicity related items for NEWS? I > guess at least the 3 new library calls should be mentioned. In fact, I've been looking forward to writing some NEWS items! Correct handling of interruptions during "notmuch new" "notmuch new" now operates as a series of small, self-consistent transactions, so it can correctly resume after an interruption or crash. Previously, interruption could lose existing tags, fail to detect messages on resume, or leave the database in a state temporarily or permanently inconsistent with the mail store. Library changes --- New functions notmuch_database_begin_atomic and notmuch_database_end_atomic allow multiple database operations to be performed atomically. notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename does exactly what it says.
Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Quoth David Bremner on Sep 24 at 11:36 pm: On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:03:02 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: Awesome. Only seven more to go! The remaining seven are pushed, along with some related debian packaging things. Huzzah! Austin, could I bug you for some atomicity related items for NEWS? I guess at least the 3 new library calls should be mentioned. In fact, I've been looking forward to writing some NEWS items! Correct handling of interruptions during notmuch new notmuch new now operates as a series of small, self-consistent transactions, so it can correctly resume after an interruption or crash. Previously, interruption could lose existing tags, fail to detect messages on resume, or leave the database in a state temporarily or permanently inconsistent with the mail store. Library changes --- New functions notmuch_database_begin_atomic and notmuch_database_end_atomic allow multiple database operations to be performed atomically. notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename does exactly what it says. ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:03:02 -0400, Austin Clements wrote: > > Awesome. Only seven more to go! The remaining seven are pushed, along with some related debian packaging things. Austin, could I bug you for some atomicity related items for NEWS? I guess at least the 3 new library calls should be mentioned. d
[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Quoth David Bremner on Sep 23 at 11:14 pm: > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:39:15 -0300, David Bremner > wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:09:16 -0400, Austin Clements > > wrote: > > > > I have rebased these yet again, and pushed the first 4 commits to > > master. So far this is mainly testing stuff, along with one oneline > > bugfix. I also added a couple testing related commits: > > > > 73ed66a test: use test_expect_equal_file in atomicity > > 05a522c test: Convert atomicity test to use > > test_subtest_known_broken > > I have pushed 5 more commits in the sequence, without changes. Awesome. Only seven more to go!
Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:03:02 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: Awesome. Only seven more to go! The remaining seven are pushed, along with some related debian packaging things. Austin, could I bug you for some atomicity related items for NEWS? I guess at least the 3 new library calls should be mentioned. d ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:39:15 -0300, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:09:16 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: I have rebased these yet again, and pushed the first 4 commits to master. So far this is mainly testing stuff, along with one oneline bugfix. I also added a couple testing related commits: 73ed66a test: use test_expect_equal_file in atomicity 05a522c test: Convert atomicity test to use test_subtest_known_broken I have pushed 5 more commits in the sequence, without changes. d ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Quoth David Bremner on Sep 23 at 11:14 pm: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:39:15 -0300, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:09:16 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: I have rebased these yet again, and pushed the first 4 commits to master. So far this is mainly testing stuff, along with one oneline bugfix. I also added a couple testing related commits: 73ed66a test: use test_expect_equal_file in atomicity 05a522c test: Convert atomicity test to use test_subtest_known_broken I have pushed 5 more commits in the sequence, without changes. Awesome. Only seven more to go! ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:09:16 -0400, Austin Clements wrote: > Rebased against current master and now atomic-new-v7 on > http://awakening.csail.mit.edu/git/notmuch.git > There were a handful of conflicts, but nothing substantive. > I have rebased these yet again, and pushed the first 4 commits to master. So far this is mainly testing stuff, along with one oneline bugfix. I also added a couple testing related commits: 73ed66a test: use test_expect_equal_file in atomicity 05a522c test: Convert atomicity test to use test_subtest_known_broken d
[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Rebased against current master and now atomic-new-v7 on
http://awakening.csail.mit.edu/git/notmuch.git
There were a handful of conflicts, but nothing substantive.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Austin Clements wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Austin Clements wrote:
>> Here's the reworked patch series that uses atomic sections more
>> heavily rather than changing the removal API. ?This is atomic-new-v6
>> on http://awakening.csail.mit.edu/git/notmuch.git .
>>
>> (I was planning to make this series on Monday while stuck on a plane,
>> but an opportunity presented itself when I needed something better to
>> do than fix the sink. ?As a result, if you can look over this before
>> Monday, I can use that time to address any further comments.)
>>
>> The beginning of the sequence---"test: Fix message when skipping
>> test_expect_equal* tests" through "new: Defer updating directory
>> mtimes until the end."---has not changed besides than the minor things
>> you pointed out earlier. ?Here's a quick summary of the differences in
>> the rest of the sequence:
>>
>> lib: Add notmuch_database_{begin,end}_atomic.
>> ?Rebased but otherwise identical.
>>
>> lib: Add support for nested atomic sections.
>> ?New.
>>
>> lib: Indicate if there are more filenames after removal.
>> ?Rebased but otherwise identical.
>>
>> lib: Remove message document directly after removing the last file
>> name.
>> ?New. ?Supersedes the patches that rewrote
>> ?notmuch_database_remove_message and made sync delete messages.
>>
>> lib: Add an API to find a message by filename.
>> ?Culled from "lib: Add API's to find by filename and ..." in the old
>> ?series. ?What I kept is identical.
>>
>> lib: Wrap notmuch_database_add_message in an atomic section.
>> ?New.
>>
>> new: Cleanup. Put removed/renamed message count in add_files_state_t.
>> new: Cleanup. De-duplicate file name removal code.
>> ?Both new, but closely related to previous remove_filename patch.
>>
>> new: Synchronize maildir flags eagerly.
>> ?New, but very closely related to previous patch of the same name.
>> ?This patch is simpler now because of the previous two cleanups.
>>
>> new: Wrap adding and removing messages in atomic sections.
>> ?Rebased and added an atomic section around removal.
>>
>> lib: Improve notmuch_database_{add,remove}_message documentation.
>> ?New.
>>
>> Ultimately, I still think the existing removal API is weird because it
>> forces you to do things like lookup a message by file name just in
>> case you need that message object after removal tells you that it
>> didn't actually remove the message. ?But I don't know what to do about
>> it that isn't equally weird.
>>
>> ___
>> notmuch mailing list
>> notmuch at notmuchmail.org
>> http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
>>
>
[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Just found one more atomicity bug in notmuch-new. I would prefer to not update this patch series yet again, but rather to follow up with a separate fix for this. The full bug is described below, but the gist is that how add_files_recursive computes new_directory from the mtime isn't sound. The simplest fix is to remove the new_directory optimization, but then we wouldn't scan files in inode order. The best fix is probably to add an out-argument to notmuch_database_get_directory that indicates if the directory really was just created in the database (and hence has no files or subdirs). Unfortunately, that requires an API change. If that's undesirable, an alternate would be to record that bit in the notmuch_directory_t and add some notmuch_directory_is_new API that returns it. Thoughts? Bug description: add_files_recursive determines whether a directory is "new" by inspecting the database mtime returned by notmuch_directory_get_mtime. However, if there's an interruption after adding messages/subdirectories from a new directory but before updating the directory's mtime, it will be considered a new directory again on the next run. As a result, on the next run, db_files and db_subdirs will not be loaded from the database (even though they *wouldn't* be NULL). As a result, we'll miss removing messages or entire subdirectories that have been deleted from the "new" directory. (We'll also re-add the messages in this directory to the database rather than skipping them, which will throw off the notmuch new statistics, but that's fine.) This didn't show up in the atomicity test because throwing off anything besides the statistics requires *two* interruptions. In fact, I don't even know how I would write an automated test for this.
Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Just found one more atomicity bug in notmuch-new. I would prefer to not update this patch series yet again, but rather to follow up with a separate fix for this. The full bug is described below, but the gist is that how add_files_recursive computes new_directory from the mtime isn't sound. The simplest fix is to remove the new_directory optimization, but then we wouldn't scan files in inode order. The best fix is probably to add an out-argument to notmuch_database_get_directory that indicates if the directory really was just created in the database (and hence has no files or subdirs). Unfortunately, that requires an API change. If that's undesirable, an alternate would be to record that bit in the notmuch_directory_t and add some notmuch_directory_is_new API that returns it. Thoughts? Bug description: add_files_recursive determines whether a directory is new by inspecting the database mtime returned by notmuch_directory_get_mtime. However, if there's an interruption after adding messages/subdirectories from a new directory but before updating the directory's mtime, it will be considered a new directory again on the next run. As a result, on the next run, db_files and db_subdirs will not be loaded from the database (even though they *wouldn't* be NULL). As a result, we'll miss removing messages or entire subdirectories that have been deleted from the new directory. (We'll also re-add the messages in this directory to the database rather than skipping them, which will throw off the notmuch new statistics, but that's fine.) This didn't show up in the atomicity test because throwing off anything besides the statistics requires *two* interruptions. In fact, I don't even know how I would write an automated test for this. ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Ping.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Austin Clements wrote:
> Here's the reworked patch series that uses atomic sections more
> heavily rather than changing the removal API. ?This is atomic-new-v6
> on http://awakening.csail.mit.edu/git/notmuch.git .
>
> (I was planning to make this series on Monday while stuck on a plane,
> but an opportunity presented itself when I needed something better to
> do than fix the sink. ?As a result, if you can look over this before
> Monday, I can use that time to address any further comments.)
>
> The beginning of the sequence---"test: Fix message when skipping
> test_expect_equal* tests" through "new: Defer updating directory
> mtimes until the end."---has not changed besides than the minor things
> you pointed out earlier. ?Here's a quick summary of the differences in
> the rest of the sequence:
>
> lib: Add notmuch_database_{begin,end}_atomic.
> ?Rebased but otherwise identical.
>
> lib: Add support for nested atomic sections.
> ?New.
>
> lib: Indicate if there are more filenames after removal.
> ?Rebased but otherwise identical.
>
> lib: Remove message document directly after removing the last file
> name.
> ?New. ?Supersedes the patches that rewrote
> ?notmuch_database_remove_message and made sync delete messages.
>
> lib: Add an API to find a message by filename.
> ?Culled from "lib: Add API's to find by filename and ..." in the old
> ?series. ?What I kept is identical.
>
> lib: Wrap notmuch_database_add_message in an atomic section.
> ?New.
>
> new: Cleanup. Put removed/renamed message count in add_files_state_t.
> new: Cleanup. De-duplicate file name removal code.
> ?Both new, but closely related to previous remove_filename patch.
>
> new: Synchronize maildir flags eagerly.
> ?New, but very closely related to previous patch of the same name.
> ?This patch is simpler now because of the previous two cleanups.
>
> new: Wrap adding and removing messages in atomic sections.
> ?Rebased and added an atomic section around removal.
>
> lib: Improve notmuch_database_{add,remove}_message documentation.
> ?New.
>
> Ultimately, I still think the existing removal API is weird because it
> forces you to do things like lookup a message by file name just in
> case you need that message object after removal tells you that it
> didn't actually remove the message. ?But I don't know what to do about
> it that isn't equally weird.
>
> ___
> notmuch mailing list
> notmuch at notmuchmail.org
> http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
>
Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Ping.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
Here's the reworked patch series that uses atomic sections more
heavily rather than changing the removal API. This is atomic-new-v6
on http://awakening.csail.mit.edu/git/notmuch.git .
(I was planning to make this series on Monday while stuck on a plane,
but an opportunity presented itself when I needed something better to
do than fix the sink. As a result, if you can look over this before
Monday, I can use that time to address any further comments.)
The beginning of the sequence---test: Fix message when skipping
test_expect_equal* tests through new: Defer updating directory
mtimes until the end.---has not changed besides than the minor things
you pointed out earlier. Here's a quick summary of the differences in
the rest of the sequence:
lib: Add notmuch_database_{begin,end}_atomic.
Rebased but otherwise identical.
lib: Add support for nested atomic sections.
New.
lib: Indicate if there are more filenames after removal.
Rebased but otherwise identical.
lib: Remove message document directly after removing the last file
name.
New. Supersedes the patches that rewrote
notmuch_database_remove_message and made sync delete messages.
lib: Add an API to find a message by filename.
Culled from lib: Add API's to find by filename and ... in the old
series. What I kept is identical.
lib: Wrap notmuch_database_add_message in an atomic section.
New.
new: Cleanup. Put removed/renamed message count in add_files_state_t.
new: Cleanup. De-duplicate file name removal code.
Both new, but closely related to previous remove_filename patch.
new: Synchronize maildir flags eagerly.
New, but very closely related to previous patch of the same name.
This patch is simpler now because of the previous two cleanups.
new: Wrap adding and removing messages in atomic sections.
Rebased and added an atomic section around removal.
lib: Improve notmuch_database_{add,remove}_message documentation.
New.
Ultimately, I still think the existing removal API is weird because it
forces you to do things like lookup a message by file name just in
case you need that message object after removal tells you that it
didn't actually remove the message. But I don't know what to do about
it that isn't equally weird.
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Austin Clements wrote: > Here's the reworked patch series that uses atomic sections more > heavily rather than changing the removal API. ?This is atomic-new-v6 > on http://awakening.csail.mit.edu/git/notmuch.git . (Patch 01/17 is out of date order. My mail queue hiccuped, so I had to resend it.)
[PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
Here's the reworked patch series that uses atomic sections more
heavily rather than changing the removal API. This is atomic-new-v6
on http://awakening.csail.mit.edu/git/notmuch.git .
(I was planning to make this series on Monday while stuck on a plane,
but an opportunity presented itself when I needed something better to
do than fix the sink. As a result, if you can look over this before
Monday, I can use that time to address any further comments.)
The beginning of the sequence---"test: Fix message when skipping
test_expect_equal* tests" through "new: Defer updating directory
mtimes until the end."---has not changed besides than the minor things
you pointed out earlier. Here's a quick summary of the differences in
the rest of the sequence:
lib: Add notmuch_database_{begin,end}_atomic.
Rebased but otherwise identical.
lib: Add support for nested atomic sections.
New.
lib: Indicate if there are more filenames after removal.
Rebased but otherwise identical.
lib: Remove message document directly after removing the last file
name.
New. Supersedes the patches that rewrote
notmuch_database_remove_message and made sync delete messages.
lib: Add an API to find a message by filename.
Culled from "lib: Add API's to find by filename and ..." in the old
series. What I kept is identical.
lib: Wrap notmuch_database_add_message in an atomic section.
New.
new: Cleanup. Put removed/renamed message count in add_files_state_t.
new: Cleanup. De-duplicate file name removal code.
Both new, but closely related to previous remove_filename patch.
new: Synchronize maildir flags eagerly.
New, but very closely related to previous patch of the same name.
This patch is simpler now because of the previous two cleanups.
new: Wrap adding and removing messages in atomic sections.
Rebased and added an atomic section around removal.
lib: Improve notmuch_database_{add,remove}_message documentation.
New.
Ultimately, I still think the existing removal API is weird because it
forces you to do things like lookup a message by file name just in
case you need that message object after removal tells you that it
didn't actually remove the message. But I don't know what to do about
it that isn't equally weird.
Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] Fix 'notmuch new' atomicity issues
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: Here's the reworked patch series that uses atomic sections more heavily rather than changing the removal API. This is atomic-new-v6 on http://awakening.csail.mit.edu/git/notmuch.git . (Patch 01/17 is out of date order. My mail queue hiccuped, so I had to resend it.) ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
