On Sun, Jul 01 2012, Ethan wrote:
>> I wonder if the following would be practical: use // as the field
>> separator:
>>
>> e.g. mbox://filename//start_of_message+length
>>
>> I think 2 consecutive slashes // is about the only thing we can assume
>> is not in the path or filename. Since it is not i
On Sun, Jul 01 2012, Ethan wrote:
>> I wonder if the following would be practical: use // as the field
>> separator:
>>
>> e.g. mbox://filename//start_of_message+length
>>
>> I think 2 consecutive slashes // is about the only thing we can assume
>> is not in the path or filename. Since it is not i
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012, Ethan wrote:
> Thanks for going through it, I know there's a lot to go through..
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Mark Walters gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of just having one mail root and inside that there could
>> be maildirs and mboxes. Everything would still b
Thanks for going through it, I know there's a lot to go through..
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Mark Walters wrote:
> I was thinking of just having one mail root and inside that there could
> be maildirs and mboxes. Everything would still be relative to the root.
>
I'm hesitant to have direct
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012, Ethan wrote:
> Thanks for going through it, I know there's a lot to go through..
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Mark Walters
> wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of just having one mail root and inside that there could
>> be maildirs and mboxes. Everything would still be relati
Thanks for going through it, I know there's a lot to go through..
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Mark Walters wrote:
> I was thinking of just having one mail root and inside that there could
> be maildirs and mboxes. Everything would still be relative to the root.
>
I'm hesitant to have direct
On Jun 29, 2012 9:43 AM, "Ethan" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Mark Walters
wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just a quick question: does this update the database with
>> maildir://files URIs instead of just filenames? In other words is it
>> safe to try out on actual mailstores?
>
>
> It doesn't cha
Hi
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Ethan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Mark Walters gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Just a quick question: does this update the database with
>> maildir://files URIs instead of just filenames? In other words is it
>> safe to try out on actual mailstores?
>>
>
> It does
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Mark Walters wrote:
>
> Just a quick question: does this update the database with
> maildir://files URIs instead of just filenames? In other words is it
> safe to try out on actual mailstores?
>
It doesn't change any of the existing filenames or do anything like a
On Jun 29, 2012 9:43 AM, "Ethan" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Mark Walters
wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just a quick question: does this update the database with
>> maildir://files URIs instead of just filenames? In other words is it
>> safe to try out on actual mailstores?
>
>
> It doesn't cha
Hi
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Ethan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Mark Walters
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Just a quick question: does this update the database with
>> maildir://files URIs instead of just filenames? In other words is it
>> safe to try out on actual mailstores?
>>
>
> It doesn't chan
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Mark Walters wrote:
>
> Just a quick question: does this update the database with
> maildir://files URIs instead of just filenames? In other words is it
> safe to try out on actual mailstores?
>
It doesn't change any of the existing filenames or do anything like a
Hi
Just a quick question: does this update the database with
maildir://files URIs instead of just filenames? In other words is it
safe to try out on actual mailstores?
(I used it on a trial system but when I reverted to master some things
seemed to stop working)
Best wishes
Mark
On Mon, 25 Ju
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Ethan wrote:
> I sent this at first as a reply-only-to-sender. Oops! Sorry Mark for the
> double send.
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Mark Walters gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> > Personally, this isn't my favorite approach, for the following reasons:
>> >
>> > 1. Notmuch, at so
David Bremner writes:
> Ethan writes:
>>
>> Yeah, I don't even know how an mbox message gets flagged read and I don't
>> know how I would support it.
>>
>
> I think read only access to mboxes is fine. Yes, somebody will be
> unhappy, but the only convincing argument I have heard for mboxes or
>
Hi
Just a quick question: does this update the database with
maildir://files URIs instead of just filenames? In other words is it
safe to try out on actual mailstores?
(I used it on a trial system but when I reverted to master some things
seemed to stop working)
Best wishes
Mark
On Mon, 25 Ju
It is pretty big and there are a couple places where the series could be
simplified, the first patch in particular. I will break it out and resubmit
piecewise but I'd like to know how to address these particular issues:
1. Are URIs the way to specify individual messages, despite bremner's
concerns
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Ethan wrote:
> I sent this at first as a reply-only-to-sender. Oops! Sorry Mark for the
> double send.
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Mark Walters
> wrote:
>
>> > Personally, this isn't my favorite approach, for the following reasons:
>> >
>> > 1. Notmuch, at some point
David Bremner writes:
> Ethan writes:
>>
>> Yeah, I don't even know how an mbox message gets flagged read and I don't
>> know how I would support it.
>>
>
> I think read only access to mboxes is fine. Yes, somebody will be
> unhappy, but the only convincing argument I have heard for mboxes or
>
Ethan writes:
>
> Yeah, I don't even know how an mbox message gets flagged read and I don't
> know how I would support it.
>
I think read only access to mboxes is fine. Yes, somebody will be
unhappy, but the only convincing argument I have heard for mboxes or
similar formats is archival use.
d
It is pretty big and there are a couple places where the series could be
simplified, the first patch in particular. I will break it out and resubmit
piecewise but I'd like to know how to address these particular issues:
1. Are URIs the way to specify individual messages, despite bremner's
concerns
Hi, Ethan. I haven't really looked at this patch set at all yet, but I
did notice that it's huge, and includes multiple big changes. Is there
any way you can break these up into separate smaller and more digestable
series? It would certainly help relieve the review burden.
jamie.
pgpKm0xwdRAj
Hi, Ethan. I haven't really looked at this patch set at all yet, but I
did notice that it's huge, and includes multiple big changes. Is there
any way you can break these up into separate smaller and more digestable
series? It would certainly help relieve the review burden.
jamie.
--
Ethan writes:
>
> Yeah, I don't even know how an mbox message gets flagged read and I don't
> know how I would support it.
>
I think read only access to mboxes is fine. Yes, somebody will be
unhappy, but the only convincing argument I have heard for mboxes or
similar formats is archival use.
d
_
I sent this at first as a reply-only-to-sender. Oops! Sorry Mark for the
double send.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Mark Walters wrote:
> > Personally, this isn't my favorite approach, for the following reasons:
> >
> > 1. Notmuch, at some point in its history, chose to store file paths
> > re
I sent this at first as a reply-only-to-sender. Oops! Sorry Mark for the
double send.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Mark Walters wrote:
> > Personally, this isn't my favorite approach, for the following reasons:
> >
> > 1. Notmuch, at some point in its history, chose to store file paths
> > re
Hi
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Ethan Glasser-Camp wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Sorry for dropping off the mailing list after I sent my last patch
> series (http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/2012/009470.html). I
> haven't had the time or a stable enough email address to really follow
> notmuch developm
Hi
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Ethan Glasser-Camp wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Sorry for dropping off the mailing list after I sent my last patch
> series (http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/2012/009470.html). I
> haven't had the time or a stable enough email address to really follow
> notmuch developm
Hi guys,
Sorry for dropping off the mailing list after I sent my last patch series
(http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/2012/009470.html). I haven't had the
time or a stable enough email address to really follow notmuch development :)
I signed onto #notmuch a week or two ago and asked what
Hi guys,
Sorry for dropping off the mailing list after I sent my last patch series
(http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/2012/009470.html). I haven't had the
time or a stable enough email address to really follow notmuch development :)
I signed onto #notmuch a week or two ago and asked what
30 matches
Mail list logo
