Return-Path: 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 5F17F429E25 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:03:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled 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 eMIZDMQ7Vub1 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:03:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-3.MIT.EDU [18.9.25.14]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D931F431FD0 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:03:56 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1209190e-b7c39ae000000a8c-d7-4e1b8f3d36af Received: from mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.39]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 7E.6C.02700.D3F8B1E4; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id p6C03uDj022207; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:03:56 -0400 Received: from awakening.csail.mit.edu (awakening.csail.mit.edu [18.26.4.91]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as amdragon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id p6C03sno000197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amthrax by awakening.csail.mit.edu with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QgQS0-0003Iu-Fp; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:03:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:03:44 -0400 From: Austin Clements To: Louis Rilling Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tags_to_maildir_flags: Don't rename if no flags change Message-ID: <20110712000344.GD25558@mit.edu> References: <87d3hzgemi.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <1310394978-11883-3-git-send-email-l.rilling@av7.net> <20110711200712.GB25558@mit.edu> <20110711223805.GC3583@localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110711223805.GC3583@localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IRYrdT17Xtl/YzePuA3+J8yysWi+s3ZzI7 MHncXbeO3ePZqlvMAUxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBnLlu1hKejhrph0fTNzA+MVji5GTg4JAROJ z1PesULYYhIX7q1n62Lk4hAS2McocfXCVhYIZwOjxJ+fh9hAqoQETjJJTN9cCZFYwiix69Ny ZpAEi4CqxPc/+xhBbDYBDYlt+5eD2SJA8Z3tR9lBbGYBaYlvv5uZQGxhgUCJQzN2gtm8AjoS 39t+MUIM3cQo8Wx5LyNEQlDi5MwnLBDNWhI3/r0EauAAG7T8HweIySlgILH2thtIhaiAisS1 /e1sExiFZiFpnoWkeRZC8wJG5lWMsim5Vbq5iZk5xanJusXJiXl5qUW6xnq5mSV6qSmlmxhB Yc0pybeD8etBpUOMAhyMSjy8q6Sl/YRYE8uKK3MPMUpyMCmJ8v7qAgrxJeWnVGYkFmfEF5Xm pBYfYpTgYFYS4Q2pBcrxpiRWVqUW5cOkpDlYlMR5o7z/+woJpCeWpGanphakFsFkZTg4lCR4 z/cBNQoWpaanVqRl5pQgpJk4OEGG8wANP98LMry4IDG3ODMdIn+KUVFKnDcSpFkAJJFRmgfX C0s7rxjFgV4R5r0CUsUDTFlw3a+ABjMBDX4tLQkyuCQRISXVwFjzyDnT9OSFd/11h785X/tX wLDpxq6XHV//ekyTm1OVpfNV6kalhOW83MCP3FY3ujQiNK8bZPQ9W555mrPd31I8WTHv0f51 j0SvHGA/2H3ddfpdl5cnNq/Zd36957ktU6uOhEZuafh7SSHgyRfuhEgTVUEFa+t9XgsX2lhy 9peffKYd5CN4QFaJpTgj0VCLuag4EQDHuCeZFgMAAA== Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:03:57 -0000 Quoth Louis Rilling on Jul 12 at 12:38 am: > On 11/07/11 16:07 -0400, Austin Clements wrote: > > I worry that this may compound the confusion caused by mutt's handling > > of the new flag, but I suppose people aren't likely to manipulate any > > of the other maildir-synchronized flags without also marking the > > message as seen. > > Even if they don't mark the message as seen, any flag changed would > move the message to cur/. The only buggy behavior would be from > mutt, with the bug you mentioned about mutt putting messages with > flags back to new/. Yes. I was thinking of someone tagging a message as, say, flagged, while it's still tagged unread. Then it would change from new to old in mutt. OTOH, adding some other non-synchronized tag wouldn't change it from new to old. I don't think there is a "correct" solution; your approach is probably the best compromise. > > The convention in notmuch is to use notmuch_bool_t, TRUE, and FALSE > > (though, admittedly, I don't know why; avoiding C99-isms?) > > And bool is already used at another place in message.cc: > > struct maildir_flag_tag { > char flag; > const char *tag; > bool inverse; > }; > > IIUC it should be changed to notmuch_bool_t too. Yes, I suppose it should (something slipped by cworth's eagle-eyed reviews!). Though that appears to be the sole use of bool in all of libnotmuch.