From: Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>
To: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Maildir synchronization
In-Reply-To: <874obrmww9.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
References: <87tyk3vpxd.fsf@wsheee.2x.cz>
	<1288560558-18915-1-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>
	<877hgsrjau.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87d3qhq527.fsf@resox.2x.cz>
	<874obrmww9.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.4-30-ga01dbf0 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:06:30 +0100
Message-ID: <87iq066cbd.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 02:46:08 +0100, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> > The current implementation renames only the file whose name is stored
> > first in the database. I have a TODO comment there to add a loop through
> > all file names, but I have never realized that deleted flag could be so
> > dangerous.
> 
> I think what I'd like to do for now is to simply remove "deleted" from
> the set of tags being manipulated by this support. 

This sounds good. Still it will be neccessary to synchronize with all
files, not only the first one. Currently, I experience a problem with
messages sent by myself to a list. The S flag is sometimes added to
the message in sent folder insted of to the message in inbox.

> This is the similar to what Sebastian decided to do with notmuchsync
> when he described in detail the same scenario I was concerned with:
> 
> 	id:87eickhor1.fsf@SSpaeth.de
> 
> Sebastian's solution was slightly different, ("deleted" was not
> synchronized by default but could be explicitly requested). I propose
> simply not synchronizing "deleted" until it can be made safe.
> 
> > It will take me probably a few days until I find time to work on this.
> > So let me now in that time whether you have some preferences in the
> > above.
> 
> I'd like to get things merged today, so I plan to take your patches and
> then add new commits on top to implement the functions I described
> above.

Great! Seems that it is still not finished and I do not want to do
duplicite work, so let me know what is the current status and whether
you need some help from me (e.g. tests for multiple messages with same
ID). I should be on IRC today.

-Michal