On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:15:21 +1000, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> Yes, that is much simpler and should work equally well as the original
> patch.
...
> So, I think I've convinced myself that the change is actually OK.

For those reasons, I'm pushing the patch now.

> But then I'm also wondering if perhaps we could do the processing undeferred
> in all cases?
> 
> I haven't thought that through, but I'd be glad to hear your ideas.

This is still an open question if anyone wants to pursue it, (it might
make it simpler to then fix the atomicity bugs with adding new messages
to the database, and only later adjusting the maildir filename).

On that topic, if we decide we do need to defer the tags/flags mapping,
then the real fix is to probably also defer the addition of the filename
to the message document in the database. If we change these things only
at the same time, then we should be able to avoid any problems with
things getting out of synchronization.

-Carl

-- 
carl.d.worth@intel.com