Tomaremos, okuparemos.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20091206/acc97ac4/attachment.pgp>
From: David Bremner
The main feature of this patch is that it compares the list of current
tags on a message with those read by restore. Only if the two lists
differ is the tag list in the message replaced. In my experiments this leads to
a large performance improvement.
Since I had to rewrite
First of all, apologies for taking so long to get back to this.
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Carl Worth wrote:
> The auto-detection is just three additional stats (at most) for each
> directory, right? That seems cheap enough to me.
If that's cheap enough, then I won't disagree with auto-detection.
J
On 19:57, Fri 27 Nov 09, Carl Worth wrote:
> (I'd like a verb that pairs better
> with "advance" than the non-verb "back"---any suggestions)?
What about regress?
I'm not a native English speaker, so maybe someone can suggest something better.
> So those won't need any new code. The one case that
From: David Bremner
The main feature of this patch is that it compares the list of current
tags on a message with those read by restore. Only if the two lists
differ is the tag list in the message replaced. In my experiments this leads to
a large performance improvement.
Since I had to rewrite
First of all, apologies for taking so long to get back to this.
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Carl Worth wrote:
> The auto-detection is just three additional stats (at most) for each
> directory, right? That seems cheap enough to me.
If that's cheap enough, then I won't disagree with auto-detection.
J
