From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34E96DE0355 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 06:37:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.005 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F1s0YhtbsB6i for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 06:37:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F58A6DE0352 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 06:37:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d85Jh-0007UH-Ri; Tue, 09 May 2017 09:36:41 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 7624 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 09 May 2017 13:37:30 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Jeffrey Stedfast , "notmuch@notmuchmail.org" Cc: notmuch@freelists.org Subject: RE: Upcoming GMime 3.0 changes In-Reply-To: References: <87mvcom1z8.fsf@tethera.net> X-List-To: notmuch Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 10:37:30 -0300 Message-ID: <87k25q178l.fsf@tesseract.cs.unb.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 13:37:38 -0000 Jeffrey Stedfast writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Bremner [mailto:david@tethera.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:18 AM >> To: Jeffrey Stedfast ; notmuch@notmuchmail.org >> Subject: Re: Upcoming GMime 3.0 changes >> >> Jeffrey Stedfast writes: >> >> > Hello notmuch devs, >> > >> > I'm sending this email to inform you guys of some upcoming GMime 3.0 >> features and other changes that I've implemented. >> > Just for the record, I have some patches in progress for porting to gmime-3.0. The main issue is the multiplicity of memory management models involved. I think the gmime 3.0 approach of using more stock glib memory management makes sense, but it will require a bit of work to make code that can compile against gmime-2.6 and gmime-3.0. I don't see us being able to drop support for gmime-2.6 for a few years, unfortunately. d