On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
>
> But yes, we need a test suite.
I have zero experience, but Check[1] looks interesting.
> Oh, and we'll also need to deal with remaining glib usage inside of
> notmuch, (and inside of GMime as well), before we can do good testing
> for memor
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
>
> But yes, we need a test suite.
I have zero experience, but Check[1] looks interesting.
> Oh, and we'll also need to deal with remaining glib usage inside of
> notmuch, (and inside of GMime as well), before we can do good testing
> for memor
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:17:02 +, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> > I *know* I composed a reply to this message earlier, but apparently
> > you're right that it never went out. (*sigh*---if only I had a reliable
> > mail client[*]).
>
> I hear there's one called sup... ;-)
Heh. But seriously, I hit a l
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:17:02 +, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> > I *know* I composed a reply to this message earlier, but apparently
> > you're right that it never went out. (*sigh*---if only I had a reliable
> > mail client[*]).
>
> I hear there's one called sup... ;-)
Heh. But seriously, I hit a l
Excerpts from Carl Worth's message of Fri Nov 27 13:23:06 + 2009:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:57:10 +, Chris Wilson chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > The majority of filenames will fit within PATH_MAX [4096] (because
> > that's a hard limit imposed by the filesystems) so we can avoid an
> > allo
Excerpts from Carl Worth's message of Fri Nov 27 13:23:06 + 2009:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:57:10 +, Chris Wilson
> wrote:
> > The majority of filenames will fit within PATH_MAX [4096] (because
> > that's a hard limit imposed by the filesystems) so we can avoid an
> > allocation per lookup
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:57:10 +, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> The majority of filenames will fit within PATH_MAX [4096] (because
> that's a hard limit imposed by the filesystems) so we can avoid an
> allocation per lookup and thereby eliminate a large proportion of the
> overhead of scanning a maildi
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:57:10 +, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> The majority of filenames will fit within PATH_MAX [4096] (because
> that's a hard limit imposed by the filesystems) so we can avoid an
> allocation per lookup and thereby eliminate a large proportion of the
> overhead of scanning a maildi
The majority of filenames will fit within PATH_MAX [4096] (because
that's a hard limit imposed by the filesystems) so we can avoid an
allocation per lookup and thereby eliminate a large proportion of the
overhead of scanning a maildir.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson
---
notmuch-new.c | 75 +++
