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 36D91429E22 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:08:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable 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 ouf6sBT1QhDp for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:08:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com (mail-qy0-f174.google.com [209.85.216.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05688429E21 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:08:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by qyj19 with SMTP id 19so240796qyj.5 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:08:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=c/G24Hb+onVU7V1xjZ/RJndXQfuZ0YKeqngxQYMZPfY=; b=YQd3IDskypNGM5NXNXPlxj3/4FSqNQlLfTYYAs4z2et6ECba2jno7SwOJpFSWMafyZ CR7aoQTh9QsI9Mwvxawh+ftHYfohtoNdX7/TDmQ2mTV0d5SB3ncDlcJJXqI5GA8h7BrV cDummBiJ9aD+F985gGfXvVsJFjNzQS1GGZsxQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; b=vMHnQKZSfIdl10qJpfcH+Qa4XdqY5DJpemaW8zAFc0s7BbtYPPQhuvEBq2GnE4hmF4 YtbyRFhxuzvp3+ueJJBxxXroCDZwyhoKl24qtxdRc9Mu5DskxsyDjYZ1UXzSaksXpSZU F/6VusCVKUhMef4A3DrZX1aWkD6IAiNvs5o04= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.217.133 with SMTP id hm5mr2107198qcb.40.1296173318728; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:08:38 -0800 (PST) Sender: amdragon@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.97.143 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.97.143 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:08:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:08:38 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: oZjmyG_nfc4k5qavYvGdNckV8zM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] new: Do not defer maildir flag synchronization during the first run From: Austin Clements To: Carl Worth Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016361e81a23aed99049adcdefd 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: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:08:42 -0000 --0016361e81a23aed99049adcdefd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Looks like eagerly synchronizing tags is easy and works fine, though I need to beef up the tests and put some transactions around things before I'm satisfied. I added a "notmuch_database_remove_message_get" to the public API that's just like "notmuch_database_remove_message" except that it also returns a notmuch_message_t if other instances of the message still exist. It feels clunky to have two almost identical variants of this function. Is this the preferred way to change the public API? Or should I just add the argument to the existing function and fix the other three calls to it? On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Austin Clements wrote: > Sure. I've been wanting to take a crack at notmuch new's atomicity for a > while. Though you'll have to get through some of my outstanding patches. I > can only keep so many branches in my head. ]:--8) > --0016361e81a23aed99049adcdefd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Looks like eagerly synchronizing tags is easy and works fine, though I n= eed to beef up the tests and put some transactions around things before I&#= 39;m satisfied.

I added a "notmuch_database_remove_message_get" to the public = API that's just like "notmuch_database_remove_message" except= that it also returns a notmuch_message_t if other instances of the message= still exist. =A0It feels clunky to have two almost identical variants of t= his function. =A0Is this the preferred way to change the public API? =A0Or = should I just add the argument to the existing function and fix the other t= hree calls to it?

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Austin Clement= s <amdragon@mit.edu> wrote:
Sure. I've been wanting to take a crack at notmuch new's atomicity = for a while. Though you'll have to get through some of my outstanding p= atches. I can only keep so many branches in my head. ]:--8)
--0016361e81a23aed99049adcdefd--