From: Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
In-Reply-To: <1265122868-12133-1-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>
References: <201001291049.21048.sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>
	<1265122868-12133-1-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:20:02 -0500
Message-ID: <87eil3ehjh.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCHv2] Preserve folder information when indexing
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue,  2 Feb 2010 16:01:08 +0100, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrot=
e:
> Stores the folder (directory name) of the message in the database as a
> term with folder prefix.
>=20
> This patch was originally sent by Andreas Kl=C3=B6ckner. The differences
> from the original patch are:
> - Folder name is taken from strings generated during travesal. It no
>   longer uses glib nor it allocates additional memory to determine the
>   base name. The same approach as in
>   id:87fx8bygi7.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com was used.
> - Removed unrelated change which was submitted separately as
>   id:1264691584-8290-2-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz
> - Changed the comment describing database schema.
>=20
> TODO (see the previous Carl's email):
> - Support hierarchical folders

Hey, Michal.  Thank you very much for this patch!  This is right on with
what I mentioned as high-priority improvements.

I just gave it a try, though, and it seemed to be behaving a little
strangely.  I currently have two subdirectories, "inbox" and "sent".
However, new mail to either directory was showing up under the search:

notmuch search folder:inbox

and nothing was showing up under the search:

notmuch search folder:sent

I wonder if there's a problem with the logic it uses to determine the
folder naming?  Do you think you could look into this?  I would really
like to push to have a patch like this applied upstream soon.

jamie.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
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=Drzp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--