1 Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E772A431FBC
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
\r
13 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled
\r
14 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
15 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
16 with ESMTP id rhkIp9WVp1bI for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
17 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
\r
18 Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])
\r
19 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
20 (No client certificate requested)
\r
21 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23F55431FAF
\r
22 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
\r
23 Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])
\r
24 by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
\r
25 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
26 id 1S7CT4-00064s-NH; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:47 +0000
\r
27 Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]
\r
29 by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)
\r
30 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
31 id 1S7CT4-0004kp-9t; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:46 +0000
\r
32 From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
33 To: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,
\r
34 notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
35 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] A bug in the exclude code
\r
36 In-Reply-To: <87r4wx7fjz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
\r
37 References: <1331551914-28323-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
38 <87r4wx7fjz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
\r
39 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+309~g045f9e7 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
\r
40 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
41 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:49 +0000
\r
42 Message-ID: <87aa3lsf2y.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
45 X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223
\r
46 X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)
\r
47 X-QM-Body-MD5: 93a2697b1f9fc3ce6f380c9ede94770d (of first 20000 bytes)
\r
48 X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8
\r
49 X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -
\r
50 X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to
\r
52 spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.
\r
53 This message scored -1.8 points.
\r
54 Summary of the scoring:
\r
55 * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
\r
57 * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]
\r
58 * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
\r
59 provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)
\r
60 * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
\r
62 * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
\r
63 X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean
\r
64 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
65 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
67 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
68 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
69 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
70 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
71 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
72 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
73 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
74 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
75 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
76 X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:52 -0000
\r
79 On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:03:12 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
\r
80 > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:31:52 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:
\r
81 > > There is a bug in the exclude code (found by jrollins in the
\r
82 > > --with-excluded series) but also present in master. None of the
\r
83 > > current tests were finding it so the first patch adds two tests.
\r
85 > Hey, Mark. Thanks so much for looking in to this. It look like this
\r
86 > patch fixes the issue for me too! Very excited to see this all coming
\r
89 > > The bug (and test failure) do not appear in all configuations: on my
\r
90 > > main test machine (an oldish debian testing 32bit userspace with a
\r
91 > > 64bit kernel and xapian 1.2.7) all tests pass. On my laptop (a recent
\r
92 > > debian testing 64bit userspace and xapian 1.2.8) one of the new tests
\r
95 > It was failing for me too, but looking closer at the test I actually
\r
96 > found a bug: you accidentally used the old style --no-exclude option,
\r
97 > instead of the new --with-excludes. When you fix the call all the tests
\r
102 > > The second patch fixes the behaviour for me but I don't see why it
\r
103 > > should make a difference: searches for A and not B should give the
\r
104 > > same results as A and not (A and B). It could be a bug in xapian, it
\r
105 > > could be that I am not allowed to reuse queries as I do (is query1 =
\r
106 > > query1 and query2 allowed?) or it could be some memory use bug on my
\r
109 > I can't explain it either, but there's certainly a lot about xapian that
\r
110 > I don't understand. Maybe one of the xapian gurus will have some ideas
\r
113 > Anyway, thanks again for pushing on all of this, Mark.
\r
117 > PS. Not a big deal, but it would have been nice for this patch set to
\r
118 > have been sent in-reply-to the original series it fixes, just to keep
\r
119 > everything together.
\r
121 Just to emphasise the bug is already present in current master (just
\r
122 better hidden because of the defaults). Hence this pair of patches
\r
123 (unlike the first one I sent privately) are to current master rather
\r
124 than to the exclude the series (though they apply there to to modulo the
\r
125 minor change you mention).
\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / blob