splittng threads [was: Re: Combining threads]

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 886 bytes --]

(hi list -- i'm new here; don't be afraid to explain things to me that
seem obvious to you, or correct my vocabulary if i'm using it wrong)

On 11/12/2010 08:11 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
> But I suppose it's as simple a matter of creating a new "top-level
> message" term in the database. The split operation would set this
> term. The explicit join operation would clear it, and the implicit join
> operation would have to be made to respect it by avoiding merging any
> top-level messages as a child of some other message. I haven't thought
> through exactly how that would work in the implementation, but hopefully
> it wouldn't be too hard.

my current understanding is that a not-uncommon use case is to have two
separate notmuch instances, synchronized by syncing maildirs and
tagsets.  Would such a thread-split be syncable between two notmuch
instances?

	--dkg


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]