Re: [PATCH 1/3] cli: add insert --must-index option

diff --git a/6e/990a29268e0b44bd62c8dd75efb5dd3cf4c6ba b/6e/990a29268e0b44bd62c8dd75efb5dd3cf4c6ba
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..b11a1f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/6e/990a29268e0b44bd62c8dd75efb5dd3cf4c6ba
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+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 466F2431FAF\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:06:16 -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 qXebqebHUenb for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:06:10 -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 02190431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:06:09 -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 1VJIxV-0004vI-LT; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:06:02 +0100\r
+Received: from 93-97-24-31.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.24.31] helo=localhost)\r
+       by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71)\r
+       (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+       id 1VJIxV-0002eL-Bq; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:06:01 +0100\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com>\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cli: add insert --must-index option\r
+In-Reply-To: <20130727151510.GA13750@hili.localdomain>\r
+References: <1374365254-13227-1-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com>\r
+       <87ip048gbj.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+       <20130727151510.GA13750@hili.localdomain>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.16 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:06:00 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <87hadtxfrr.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 93.97.24.31\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record.  :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: ae989e6c2e9253499f409b45db0e9ed2 (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: 0.0\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 0.0 points. Summary of the scoring: \r
+       * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+       provider *      (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+       *  0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\r
+Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\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: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:06:16 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+Hi\r
+\r
+>> Do you have a particular use case where indexing is required but tagging\r
+>> is not? For my uses I would prefer failing if either indexing or tagging\r
+>> failed. (My use being postponing messages; If they don't get the\r
+>> postponed tag they could be hard to find)\r
+>\r
+> You're right.\r
+>\r
+> What about a failure to sync tags to maildir flags?\r
+\r
+Personally, I wouldn't mind ignoring this failure: it should be\r
+relatively easy to fix after the fact (but others may disagree).\r
+\r
+> I now noticed that database modifications aren't flushed until the\r
+> notmuch_database_destroy call (right?), which has no return value and\r
+> failure of which is silently ignored.  That's acceptable in the default\r
+> mode, but with --must-index the failure should be reported (and the\r
+> file deleted).\r
+\r
+Yes I think you are right: flushed by notmuch_database_close which is\r
+called by notmuch_database_destroy.\r
+\r
+Perhaps the easiest would be to add a notmuch_database_flush with a\r
+return value and then you can call that (and then call\r
+notmuch_database_destroy)? \r
+\r
+Alternatively maybe add notmuch_database_destroy_with_flush or something\r
+which does give a return value. notmuch_database_close is only called 3\r
+times and notmuch_database_destroy lots of times so changing close is\r
+much less intrusive than changing destroy. But I don't know whether we\r
+would break any  bindings or external programs etc.\r
+\r
+What do you think?\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r