Return-Path: <sebastien.binet@cern.ch>
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 1D40C431E82
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 zoJcLtAR1VLE for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
	Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CERNMX30.cern.ch (cernmx30.cern.ch [137.138.144.177])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BD22431E64
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CERNFE22.cern.ch (137.138.144.151) by cernmxgwlb2.cern.ch
	(137.138.144.177) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3;
	Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:59:40 +0200
Received: from localhost (134.158.88.68) by smtp.cern.ch (137.138.144.172)
	with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4;
	Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:59:40 +0200
From: Sebastien Binet <binet@cern.ch>
To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, Jameson Graef Rollins
	<jrollins@finestructure.net>
Subject: Re: post-new [was: Re: query on a subset of messages ?]
In-Reply-To:
 <CAB+hUn-=K20mSuAkptMXZvQNv+4Mvy7sT9tVxfdYXY8yb-euJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <871ukl5oj7.fsf@cern.ch> <87ehol2aku.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<87wr2c3mtj.fsf@cern.ch> <87r4sk3lxu.fsf@cern.ch>
	<8739503llz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<CAB+hUn-=K20mSuAkptMXZvQNv+4Mvy7sT9tVxfdYXY8yb-euJw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+60~g7ecf77d (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.1.1
	(x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:59:39 +0200
Message-ID: <871ukk2ayc.fsf@cern.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Originating-IP: [134.158.88.68]
Keywords: CERN SpamKiller Note: -50
Cc: Notmuch Mail <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."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:59:47 -0000

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain

Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> writes:

> On Jul 9, 2012 8:12 PM, "Jameson Graef Rollins" <jrollins@finestructure.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 09 2012, Sebastien Binet <binet@cern.ch> wrote:
>> > hum... is post-new supposed to be run even if there is no new message ?
>>
>> Hi, Sebastian.  Yes, I think it runs regardless if there are any new
>> messages or not.
>
> That's correct; only errors in notmuch new cause post-new hook to be
> skipped.

ok. I thought using the post-new hook would have saved some i/o
resources over my current setup:
 offlineimap.postsynchook = ~/emacs/notmuch-lib/notmuch-tag.sh

where notmuch-tag.sh is (in pseudo-code):
##
/usr/bin/notmuch new

for tag,query in tag-queries:
  tag_new $tag $query

##

is there any advantage of using post-new compared to this setup ?

-s

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk/7/QsACgkQPj4AVbsZCCYG+ACgovkkfxC8rj63LxkD6iHbcS8a
TeEAn3UDozbQ64b4b2tARvez3OxYGv3R
=Rdqr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--