Return-Path: <cworth@cworth.org>
X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476A2431FC2;
	Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:23:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id QEjlsrWs-8sf; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:23:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FFE6431FAE;
	Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:23:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
To: Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag@dottedmag.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
In-Reply-To: <878wdti6li.fsf@vertex.dottedmag>
References: <1258938805-15961-1-git-send-email-dottedmag@dottedmag.net>
	<87aay9s3a8.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <878wdti6li.fsf@vertex.dottedmag>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:23:25 -0800
Message-ID: <87638xrvqa.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH] Handle message renames in mail spool
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:23:40 -0000

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:38:49 +0600, Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag@dottedmag.net> wrote:
> 
> Twas brillig at 07:40:15 26.11.2009 UTC-08 when cworth@cworth.org did gyre and gimble:
> 
>  CW> I *really* want this patch in, since I think a lot of current users
>  CW> would really benefit from it. I only see one big problem with it:
> 
> Did you test the performance hit caused by disabling mtime checks?

Not yet, no.

I only had a moment earlier---just long enough to review the patch by
reading it. I haven't actually tested it at all yet.

-Carl