DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=content-type:cc:subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=tdowYFrl5G2zn83wJlqEwTu8Q3vkSjKMA01Sfu2dR+TpMCt0u7+BBkzCqexpKJSeJb
	GUxn7NwWzOfIBFmy7nGtlqnkjs9MMybwReDbbi3fu2MZpzbXrW3KsMhI/day5D0GJT2N
	eA8LfVHSu4cHb+6VG7nc0xIUCg1B8l7E+W6F4=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From: Ben Gamari <bgamari@gmail.com>
To: Mark Anderson <markr.anderson@amd.com>
In-reply-to: <3wd3a0z7jjv.fsf@mhdcelk-nx01.amd.com>
References: <20100215002914.GA22402@flamingspork.com>
	<20100217012101.GD8249@lapse.rw.madduck.net>
	<1266418124-sup-6308@ben-laptop>
	<3wd3a0z7jjv.fsf@mhdcelk-nx01.amd.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:34:31 -0500
Message-Id: <1266435265-sup-5024@ben-laptop>
User-Agent: Sup/git
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Subject: Re: [notmuch] Mail in git
Precedence: list

Excerpts from Mark Anderson's message of Wed Feb 17 14:23:48 -0500 2010:
> But if we have notmuch as a cache of the tags, then don't we already
> know the tree objects that need updating?  Yes, we would probably need
> some consistency checks for when things don't work as planned, but in
> the common case we ought to always know.
> 
Cached or not, rewriting would still be an incredibly (e.g.
prohibitively or close to it) expensive operation for a large mailstore.

> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding these tree objects, and you're suggesting
> that we don't even tell notmuch about them.
> 
I think it would be unwise to teach notmuch anything about the
underlying store. That would be leaking way too many implementation
details into 

- Ben