On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:35:24 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> Tracking directory mtime instead of just looking at the read-only bit
> would let us skip directories that haven't seen any change in content.
We've had directory mtime for a long time. I added the check for the
read-only bit afterwards t
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:35:24 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> Tracking directory mtime instead of just looking at the read-only bit
> would let us skip directories that haven't seen any change in content.
We've had directory mtime for a long time. I added the check for the
read-only bit afterwards t
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:54:35 +0100, Adrian Perez wrote:
> When running "notmuch new --verbose", ANSI escapes are used. This may not be
> desirable when the output of the command is *not* being sent to a terminal
> (e.g. when piping output into another command). In that case each file
> processed i
When running "notmuch new --verbose", ANSI escapes are used. This may not be
desirable when the output of the command is *not* being sent to a terminal
(e.g. when piping output into another command). In that case each file
processed is printed in a new line and ANSI escapes are not used at all.
---
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:12:09 +0100, Carl Worth wrote:
> So that's totally broken and we should come up with a way to fix it.
Tracking directory mtime instead of just looking at the read-only bit
would let us skip directories that haven't seen any change in content.
Tracking directory contents w
