Re: splittng threads [was: Re: Combining threads]

[Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> (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?

It won't be syncable without a special support somewhere in notmuch.

-Michal