From: "Sebastian Spaeth" <Sebastian@SSpaeth.de>
To: martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net>,
 Asheesh Laroia <asheesh@asheesh.org>
In-Reply-To: <87k4v670s3.fsf@SSpaeth.de>
References: <20100111221909.GA30299@lapse.rw.madduck.net>
	<1263267603-sup-302@elise>
	<20100112045152.GA15275@lapse.rw.madduck.net>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1001140254240.27198@vellum>
	<20100114203730.GE4691@lapse.rw.madduck.net>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1001210124590.24778@localhost>
	<20100125004659.GA24818@lapse.rw.madduck.net>
	<87k4v670s3.fsf@SSpaeth.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:00:47 +0100
Message-ID: <87fx5rexc0.fsf@SSpaeth.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Subject: Re: [notmuch] Git as notmuch object store (was: Potential problem
 using Git for mail)
Precedence: list

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:49:00 +0100, "Sebastian Spaeth" <Sebastian@SSpaeth.de> wrote:
> While notmuchsync fullfils my needs, it is a kludge. It needs to call
> "notmuch" for each mail where a MailDir flag has changed (which can be
> quite often on an initial run, where most mails are likely to be read),
> this can take a long, long time. It would makes sense IMHO to at least
> pick pioto's "don't set unread if 'S' flag is set" on notmuch new[1].

Once python bindings exist for the notmuch shared library, I am sure we
can speed notmuchsync up a lot by keeping the connection open and
tagging all mails in one go rather than executing a separate binary for
each mail. So, this approach might still be feasible.
Sebastian