Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] complete ghost-on-removal-when-shared-thread-exists

diff --git a/46/fa7b0c7c320a184708c0056bd6cfa02053a1e0 b/46/fa7b0c7c320a184708c0056bd6cfa02053a1e0
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..52b8d5b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/46/fa7b0c7c320a184708c0056bd6cfa02053a1e0
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994386DE02BF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat,  9 Apr 2016 11:55:50 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -0.026\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[AWL=-0.026] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id O8AxVU4TBj_P for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Sat,  9 Apr 2016 11:55:42 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108])\r
+ by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A970D6DE00BD\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat,  9 Apr 2016 11:55:42 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from fifthhorseman.net (ool-6c3a0662.static.optonline.net\r
+ [108.58.6.98])\r
+ by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08FD0FDB7;\r
+ Sat,  9 Apr 2016 14:55:29 -0400 (EDT)\r
+Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)\r
+ id 305781FD92; Sat,  9 Apr 2016 14:55:29 -0400 (EDT)\r
+From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>\r
+To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] complete\r
+ ghost-on-removal-when-shared-thread-exists\r
+In-Reply-To: <871t6f3tng.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+References: <1459445693-3900-1-git-send-email-dkg@fifthhorseman.net>\r
+ <1460166892-29721-1-git-send-email-dkg@fifthhorseman.net>\r
+ <1460166892-29721-7-git-send-email-dkg@fifthhorseman.net>\r
+ <871t6f3tng.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+124~gbf604e9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 14:55:29 -0400\r
+Message-ID: <87shyuvcgu.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:55:50 -0000\r
+\r
+On Sat 2016-04-09 07:31:47 -0400, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:\r
+> Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> writes:\r
+>\r
+>\r
+>> +           status = _notmuch_message_delete (message);\r
+>> +           if (status) /* we'll report the last failure we see;\r
+>> +                        * if there is more than one failure, we\r
+>> +                        * forget about previous ones */\r
+>> +               last_error = status;\r
+>\r
+> I was initially worried/paranoid that there might be some risk of data\r
+> loss by continuing deleting after the first bad status; that doesn't\r
+> seem to be the case, but there doesn't seem to be much advantage in\r
+> continuing either, since the only error currently returned from\r
+> _notmuch_message_delete is from _notmuch_database_ensure_writable,\r
+> which seems likely to persist.  So perhaps exiting the loop on the\r
+> first error might be less confusing.\r
+\r
+At the moment, that's the only possible error, but maybe there will be\r
+more errors as notmuch grows/changes in the future?  I figure we should\r
+try once to delete each message we know we want to delete, regardless of\r
+the success in deleting other message. So i'm inclined to keep it as-is,\r
+but if someone wants to prepare a patch for the other direction i\r
+wouldn't object strongly.\r
+\r
+> Other than that, and my bug in ghost-report, the series looks good to\r
+> me.\r
+\r
+cool!  do you need another rev of the series from me, or is that\r
+something you're up for applying directly?\r
+\r
+       --dkg\r