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 4A5DB6DE00DB for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:01:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.007 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, 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 i0xb12EC_Pyh for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9552D6DE00C9 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bmgDN-0000dK-F0; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 08:01:25 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 27572 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:01:33 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Cc: Tomi Ollila Subject: Re: v3 of message properties patches In-Reply-To: <87a8f2utfb.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <1470491559-3946-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net> <87a8f2utfb.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:01:33 -0300 Message-ID: <87lgylea1u.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:01:41 -0000 Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > I've been running this series of patches since shortly after they were > released. They work for me, and they're a critical feature to enable > the cleartext index series i've been trying to land. OK, that's certainly more testing and API evaluation than most series get. I'd still like someone other than me to sanity check the code itself, and the design decisions that hard to change later, namely changes to the database format and the dump-restore format. And of course the main reason we want code review is for to find the issues that I am not aware of. Tomi, I know you've read the code at some level, are you happy with merging the series? > > As i've been maintaining them against the master branch, they've > diverged slightly from the series here. I'd be happy to send the > updated revisions here if folks want them, but there are no substantive > changes. I can confirm that's just a rebase against master of what I have.