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 3616F6DE0243 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:13:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.012 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, 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 hL5v-2qL8c7f for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 593BB6DE0159 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1b8yGg-00041A-JZ; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:12:42 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 32126 invoked by uid 1000); Fri, 03 Jun 2016 23:12:52 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [RFC2 Patch 5/5] lib: iterator API for message properties In-Reply-To: <87y46mpcbf.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <1463927339-5441-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net> <1464608999-14774-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net> <1464608999-14774-6-git-send-email-david@tethera.net> <8760tthfuy.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87pos1u14p.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87eg8ht2sb.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87lh2ofpxk.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87inxrqyv1.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <8737oufn6f.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87y46mpcbf.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.22+28~gb9bf3f4 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 20:12:52 -0300 Message-ID: <87mvn1euiz.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 23:13:03 -0000 Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > [ Unknown signature status ] > On Fri 2016-06-03 08:54:00 -0400, David Bremner wrote: >> Sure, where do you think that kind of documentation is appropriate? >> There is the giant comment about the database schema in >> lib/database.cc. Actually I just noticed I already failed to update that >> for libconfig stuff. > > That comment seems OK, but it won't be exposed to the people who are in > that middle range (python or ruby programmers but not C programmers). > Do we have a place for this kind of mid-level documenation? The simplest solution is probably API documentation itself (lib/notmuch.h), which should propagage to the bindings documentation. Maybe I'll start with that, and we can go from there. > >> [ dkg wrote: ] >>> * for messages which have multiple files, which file is actually indexed >> >> yes. Although rather than storing that, I think the right answer is more >> like "all of them". > > I don't think we do this, do we? Is this a bug? is it tracked somewhere? IMHO it is a bug. It's implicit in id:87k42vrqve.fsf@pip.fifthhorseman.net and the various requests for List-Id indexing, but it's probably worth starting a seperate thread to track it. Especially since there are some unresolved design issues. Like what to return for searches. > This is exactly my point -- i don't care about reproducibility of the > exact numbering, but , the thread-id is *not* reproducible from the > message sets. This is not only because of the ghost message leakage bug > documented in T590-thread-breakage.sh, but also because threads can be > joined by a message that is later removed (e.g., the "notmuch-join" > script in id:87egabu5ta.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net ). I see, I guess that's the intended behaviour given 604d1e0977c. I haven't thought about the pros and cons of dumping/restoring thread-ids. At least my database has about half as many threads as messages, so it's a bit of data, but perhaps that's not a bit problem. It's somewhat orthogonal to this series since those terms are already attached to messages. >> I'm not sure what you have in mind, something more ambitious than the >> header added post 0.22? > > Can you point me to the definition for that header? i still don't > understand what the batch-tag:2 part means. (sorry i haven't been > keeping up with the master branch lately!) > Currently there's just the source: it says which format, and with that format, which subset of output. static void print_dump_header (gzFile output, int output_format, int include) { gzprintf (output, "#notmuch-dump %s:%d %s%s%s\n", (output_format == DUMP_FORMAT_SUP) ? "sup" : "batch-tag", NOTMUCH_DUMP_VERSION, (include & DUMP_INCLUDE_CONFIG) ? "config" : "", (include & DUMP_INCLUDE_TAGS) && (include & DUMP_INCLUDE_CONFIG) ? "," : "", (include & DUMP_INCLUDE_TAGS) ? "tags" : ""); }