From: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
To: Justus Winter <4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>,
	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] ruby: Use notmuch_database_destroy instead of
	notmuch_database_close
In-Reply-To: <20120423124946.31231.53523@thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de>
References: <20120422120620.26225.40778@thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de>
	<1335096477-27537-1-git-send-email-4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>
	<1335096477-27537-6-git-send-email-4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>
	<CAMP44s0KHJz6AxUfRjEUk5heOEFVyT2NixpFNb5GZakXaoLAKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120423124946.31231.53523@thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12+132~gf2f390b (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:39:30 -0400
Message-ID: <87obqggcbx.fsf@awakening.csail.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Justus Winter <4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
> Quoting Felipe Contreras (2012-04-23 14:36:33)
>> I don't think this is the right approach. If database_destroy truly
>> destroys the object, then we would want to do it only at garbage
>> collection, when it's not accessible any more. What if I want to
>> re-use the database from the Ruby code?
>> 
>> This would probably be better:
>> 
>>[...]
>
> You're probably right, I don't know the ruby bindings at all, I just
> wanted to preserve the old behavior. You are welcome to refine the
> ruby bindings later (or maintain them, I *believe* they are
> unmaintained, the last change was back in october 2011), but let's get
> this patch series in first.

I just marked this series ready, but I wasn't clear on what the
conclusion here was.  Feel free to mark it moreinfo again if it's not
actually ready (maybe mark just this patch?  it's a bit confusing since
the patches aren't quite all together.)