Re: [PATCH] emacs: derive correct timestamp in FCC unique name

diff --git a/91/3b67f9fc28050c6f4172f142e675ad8dfb5b66 b/91/3b67f9fc28050c6f4172f142e675ad8dfb5b66
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..085fa86
--- /dev/null
+++ b/91/3b67f9fc28050c6f4172f142e675ad8dfb5b66
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+Return-Path: <prvs=505a806dc=jrosenthal@jhu.edu>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED997431FB6\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:35:49 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: 0\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none]\r
+       autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id scEMnLbK3b8Q for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:35:47 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Greylist: delayed 3602 seconds by postgrey-1.32 at olra;\r
+       Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:35:47 PDT\r
+Received: from smtpauth.johnshopkins.edu (smtpauth.johnshopkins.edu\r
+       [162.129.8.201]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))\r
+       (No client certificate requested)\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3880A431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:35:47 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true\r
+X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ak4JACQS2k8KoSES/2dsb2JhbABFtA0DgjOCGAEBBAF+CwsNCwklDwEsGwYBEogGsRCJBIsyd4UaA5sXA4x/\r
+X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,770,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="154617523"\r
+Received: from unknown (HELO watt) ([10.161.33.18])\r
+       by ipex2.johnshopkins.edu with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA;\r
+       14 Jun 2012 12:35:44 -0400\r
+Received: from jkr by watt with local (Exim 4.76)\r
+       (envelope-from <jrosenthal@jhu.edu>)\r
+       id 1SfD1O-0002nv-3y; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:35:46 -0400\r
+From: Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu>\r
+To: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH] emacs: derive correct timestamp in FCC unique name\r
+In-Reply-To: <m2k3zamdo6.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>\r
+References: <87d353ezyw.fsf@jhu.edu> <m2k3zamdo6.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12~rc1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.1.50.1\r
+       (i686-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:35:46 -0400\r
+Message-ID: <871ulhhmvx.fsf@jhu.edu>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:35:50 -0000\r
+\r
+Hi, \r
+\r
+thanks for thinking this through.\r
+\r
+On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote:\r
+> Alternatives:\r
+>\r
+> 1) Use current patch, filenames will have extra '-' in 2038 on 32-bit\r
+> systems.\r
+\r
+Well, that assumes there is still the same arithmetic operations -- the\r
+calendar issue will probably push them to either auto-convert to float\r
+or use bignum. But still, assuming that in 2038, people are still on\r
+32bit machines, it seems we should minimize the amount of things that\r
+need to be fixed. \r
+\r
+So I agree that...\r
+\r
+> 2) Drop 'timeid' and replace it with (float-time) in `format` call a few\r
+> lines in original source after the patch context below -- No idea\r
+> how (float-time) works on 32-bit systems after 2038.\r
+\r
+is probably the best. They'll have to deal with their time_t (again,\r
+assuming the unlikely existence of 32bit machines then) but this doesn't\r
+depend on their arithemetic. \r
+\r
+I'll send a revision to this thread.\r
+\r
+> I suggest option #2.\r
+>\r
+> Tomi\r
+\r
+Thanks again,\r
+Jesse\r