On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 22:42, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 03:37 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On 11/16/2010 03:26 PM, Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
>>> ? ? So in the light of the above quoted "glitches", my question is:
>>> due to the small chance of a power loss happening righ
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 22:37, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 03:26 PM, Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
>> ? ? P.S.: I say "pseudo" atomic because only the rename is atomic,
>> thus in order to override file `a` for the target file `b` which
>> exists, we must execute two **non-atomic**
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 21:09, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:33:30 +0200, "Ciprian Dorin, Craciun" at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ? ? So my question is: is this behaviour (of deleting the file and
>> creating a new one) deliberate? If not, could it be fixed (I could
>> provide a patch) to j
On 11/16/2010 03:37 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 03:26 PM, Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
>> So in the light of the above quoted "glitches", my question is:
>> due to the small chance of a power loss happening right when we write
>> such a small file, doesn't the inconvenience
On 11/16/2010 03:26 PM, Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
> So in the light of the above quoted "glitches", my question is:
> due to the small chance of a power loss happening right when we write
> such a small file, doesn't the inconvenience weight more than the
> (fairly remote probable) file los
Hello all!
First congratulations for the nice software! I hardly wait for a
notmuch native (i.e. libnotmuch) and curses client (like `ner`) to
become more stable, and thus I'll be able to ditch GMail. :) But until
then a small glitch...
While upgrading from notmuch 0.4 to 0.5, I've re
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 22:42, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 03:37 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On 11/16/2010 03:26 PM, Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
>>> So in the light of the above quoted "glitches", my question is:
>>> due to the small chance of a power loss happening righ
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 22:37, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 03:26 PM, Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
>> P.S.: I say "pseudo" atomic because only the rename is atomic,
>> thus in order to override file `a` for the target file `b` which
>> exists, we must execute two **non-atomic**
On 11/16/2010 03:37 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 03:26 PM, Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
>> So in the light of the above quoted "glitches", my question is:
>> due to the small chance of a power loss happening right when we write
>> such a small file, doesn't the inconvenience
On 11/16/2010 03:26 PM, Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
> So in the light of the above quoted "glitches", my question is:
> due to the small chance of a power loss happening right when we write
> such a small file, doesn't the inconvenience weight more than the
> (fairly remote probable) file los
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 21:09, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:33:30 +0200, "Ciprian Dorin, Craciun"
> wrote:
>> So my question is: is this behaviour (of deleting the file and
>> creating a new one) deliberate? If not, could it be fixed (I could
>> provide a patch) to just update
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:33:30 +0200, "Ciprian Dorin, Craciun"
wrote:
> First congratulations for the nice software!
Thanks so much! Welcome to notmuch.
> So my question is: is this behaviour (of deleting the file and
> creating a new one) deliberate? If not, could it be fixed (I could
>
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:33:30 +0200, "Ciprian Dorin, Craciun" wrote:
> First congratulations for the nice software!
Thanks so much! Welcome to notmuch.
> So my question is: is this behaviour (of deleting the file and
> creating a new one) deliberate? If not, could it be fixed (I could
> p
On 11/16/2010 08:38 AM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:33:30 +0200, "Ciprian Dorin, Craciun" at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So my question is: is this behaviour (of deleting the file and
>> creating a new one) deliberate? If not, could it be fixed (I could
>> provide a patch) to just
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:33:30 +0200, "Ciprian Dorin, Craciun" wrote:
> But in my particular case `~/.notmuch-config` is symlinked to an
> applications configuration directory which is versioned. Thus I've
> expected than when notmuch updates the config, it opens it for
> read-write, but with th
On 11/16/2010 08:38 AM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:33:30 +0200, "Ciprian Dorin, Craciun"
> wrote:
>> So my question is: is this behaviour (of deleting the file and
>> creating a new one) deliberate? If not, could it be fixed (I could
>> provide a patch) to just update the
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:33:30 +0200, "Ciprian Dorin, Craciun"
wrote:
> But in my particular case `~/.notmuch-config` is symlinked to an
> applications configuration directory which is versioned. Thus I've
> expected than when notmuch updates the config, it opens it for
> read-write, but with t
Hello all!
First congratulations for the nice software! I hardly wait for a
notmuch native (i.e. libnotmuch) and curses client (like `ner`) to
become more stable, and thus I'll be able to ditch GMail. :) But until
then a small glitch...
While upgrading from notmuch 0.4 to 0.5, I've re
18 matches
Mail list logo
