From: James Westby <jw+debian@jameswestby.net>
To: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH] Store thread ids for messages that we haven't
	seen yet
In-Reply-To: <87sk6ze5v3.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
References: <87fx72o8pq.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<1268515677-12692-1-git-send-email-jw+debian@jameswestby.net>
	<87sk6ze5v3.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:36:30 +0100
Message-ID: <874ojftldt.fsf@jameswestby.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:20:48 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> Thanks for this patch, James! It's especially nice to have the fix come
> in with additions to the test suite as well.

Thanks for including a test suite I could add to!

> I did split up the commit so the addition to the test suite happens
> first. That way it's easy to test the test itself, (verifying that it
> fails before the fix, and then passes after the fix).

Your choice. I prefer putting them in the same commit to be more
self-documenting, and then using the capabilities of my VCS to verify
the change if i desire.

> I also added a few documentation and other cleanups as follow-on
> commits. Hopefully, they don't change the logic at all, but make things
> easier to understand.
> 
> So that's all pushed.

Great, thanks.

> Then, I started implementing support for retroactively storing
> thread_ids for non-existing messages references in already-existing
> messages. It took me perhaps too long that a change like that, (while
> useful), is too invasive for the current 0.2 release, and not essential
> for this particular feature.

This would fix up threads for all existing messages? Probably a good
thing to have, but not that important to me. In my case I can always
open the bug in my browser if I want to see the full conversation.

> So I've postponed that part at least. I hope to make a database-schema
> upgrade a key part of a release in a couple of cycles, (for this
> feature and for "list:" and "folder:").

Cool, I look forward to it.

Thanks,

James