From: James Westby <jw+debian@jameswestby.net>
To: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
In-Reply-To: <873a38ypg5.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
References: <87oclwrtqa.fsf@jameswestby.net>
	<874onoysrl.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87my1grrdi.fsf@jameswestby.net>
	<873a38ypg5.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:24:17 +0000
Message-ID: <87ljh0rn5q.fsf@jameswestby.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [notmuch] Missing messages breaking threads
Precedence: list

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:52:58 -0800, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:53:13 +0000, James Westby <jw+debian@jameswestby.net> wrote:
> Oh, I was assuming you wouldn't index any text. The UI can add "missing
> message" for a document with no filename, for example.

Works for me.

> > So, to summarise, I should first look at storing filesizes, then
> > the collision code to make it index further when the filesize grows,
> > and then finally the code to add documents for missing messages?
> 
> Some of the code areas to be touched will be changing soon, (at least as
> far as when filenames appear and disappear). Hopefully I'll have
> something posted for that sooner rather than later to avoid having to
> redo too much work.

That would be great. I'm learning all the code anyway, so there's not
a whole lot of knowledge being thrown away.

I've just sent an initial cut at the fist step.

> > The only thing I am unclear on is how to handle existing databases?
> > Do we have any concept of versioning? Or should I just assume that
> > filesize: may not be in the document and act appropriately?
> 
> My current, outstanding patch is going to be the first trigger for a
> "flag day" where we'll all need to rewrite our databases.
> 
> We don't have any concept of versioning yet, but it would obviously be
> easy to have a new version document with an increasing integer.
> 
> But even with my current patch I'm considering doing a graceful upgrade
> of the database in-place rather than making the user do something like a
> dump, delete, rebuild, restore. That would give a much better experience
> than "Your database is out-of-date, please rebuild it", so we'll see if
> I pursue that in the end.

That sounds nice, I'd certainly prefer this sort of thing as it evolves.

Thanks,

James