Re: [PATCH 0/2] A bug in the exclude code

diff --git a/43/c999bfd4e78ef9b5bc2a918ecd84c842a74e51 b/43/c999bfd4e78ef9b5bc2a918ecd84c842a74e51
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..46c8d2f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/43/c999bfd4e78ef9b5bc2a918ecd84c842a74e51
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E772A431FBC\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.098\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,\r
+       NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id rhkIp9WVp1bI for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])\r
+       (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+       (No client certificate requested)\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23F55431FAF\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])\r
+       by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)\r
+       (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+       id 1S7CT4-00064s-NH; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:47 +0000\r
+Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]\r
+       helo=localhost)\r
+       by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)\r
+       (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+       id 1S7CT4-0004kp-9t; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:46 +0000\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,\r
+ notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] A bug in the exclude code\r
+In-Reply-To: <87r4wx7fjz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+References: <1331551914-28323-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+       <87r4wx7fjz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+309~g045f9e7 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:49 +0000\r
+Message-ID: <87aa3lsf2y.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record.  :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: 93a2697b1f9fc3ce6f380c9ede94770d (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8\r
+X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to\r
+       determine if it is\r
+       spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.\r
+       This message scored -1.8 points.\r
+       Summary of the scoring: \r
+       * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,\r
+       *      medium trust\r
+       *      [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]\r
+       * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+       provider *      (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+       * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay\r
+       *      domain\r
+       *  0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:52 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:03:12 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:\r
+> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:31:52 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:\r
+> > There is a bug in the exclude code (found by jrollins in the\r
+> > --with-excluded series) but also present in master.  None of the\r
+> > current tests were finding it so the first patch adds two tests.\r
+> \r
+> Hey, Mark.  Thanks so much for looking in to this.  It look like this\r
+> patch fixes the issue for me too!  Very excited to see this all coming\r
+> together.\r
+> \r
+> > The bug (and test failure) do not appear in all configuations: on my\r
+> > main test machine (an oldish debian testing 32bit userspace with a\r
+> > 64bit kernel and xapian 1.2.7) all tests pass. On my laptop (a recent\r
+> > debian testing 64bit userspace and xapian 1.2.8) one of the new tests\r
+> > fails.\r
+> \r
+> It was failing for me too, but looking closer at the test I actually\r
+> found a bug: you accidentally used the old style --no-exclude option,\r
+> instead of the new --with-excludes.  When you fix the call all the tests\r
+> pass fine.\r
+\r
+That's great.\r
+\r
+> > The second patch fixes the behaviour for me but I don't see why it\r
+> > should make a difference: searches for A and not B should give the\r
+> > same results as A and not (A and B). It could be a bug in xapian, it\r
+> > could be that I am not allowed to reuse queries as I do (is query1 =\r
+> > query1 and query2 allowed?) or it could be some memory use bug on my\r
+> > part.\r
+> \r
+> I can't explain it either, but there's certainly a lot about xapian that\r
+> I don't understand.  Maybe one of the xapian gurus will have some ideas\r
+> (Olly?  Austin?).\r
+> \r
+> Anyway, thanks again for pushing on all of this, Mark.\r
+> \r
+> jamie.\r
+> \r
+> PS. Not a big deal, but it would have been nice for this patch set to\r
+> have been sent in-reply-to the original series it fixes, just to keep\r
+> everything together.\r
+\r
+Just to emphasise the bug is already present in current master (just\r
+better hidden because of the defaults). Hence this pair of patches\r
+(unlike the first one I sent privately) are to current master rather\r
+than to the exclude the series (though they apply there to to modulo the\r
+minor change you mention).\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r