Le 06/09/2011 10:23, Greg Banks a écrit :
a) my commit "Make quota -f less racy" is going to cause lots of clashes
(sorry!)
b) Bron and I both think that your commit "Compute each quota resource
upon setting it for the first time." is unnecessary, given that
i) quota -f doesn't suck now, and
ii) soon, all of the quota-able quantities will be tracked in fields
in the index header.
So I think we'll need another round, sorry :( Given that the
annotations quota is broken and I'll be reimplementing it anyway, you
may as well ignore QUOTA_ANNOTSTORAGE in all commits, and leave out the
function annotatemore_computequota() for now. We'll use something very
much like it for reconstruct later. I'm hoping to be able to pull your
next round of changes into my annotate branch before I reimplement the
annotation quota in the next few days.
...
I'm still not convinced we'll need quota.sets[], but I'll play along.
Thanks again for your work, and sorry that my annotate branch wasn't
quite as stable a base as you first thought :)
So, I saved my current branch to 'quotamessage-0/gnb/annotate' and
rebased my patches on current 'annotate' branch (with less racy 'quota -f').
I removed everything related to recomputing from my patches (as well as
quota.sets[]).
What is missing now is the new index field, which value will be used in
mailbox_get_usage function. Since my changes do rely on this function,
and sometimes computes a delta compared to a previous call of that
function, it may not need to be updated afterwards ... I hope.
Then maybe some of the cassandane tests I pushed on our repository would
need to be refreshed (at least the one that checks what happens for
legacy mailboxes on which we add one of the newly handled quota resources).
Regards
Julien
