* multiple machine tagging
@ 2010-05-20 8:25 David Edmondson
2010-05-20 16:28 ` Jesse Rosenthal
2014-09-15 13:49 ` David Edmondson
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Edmondson @ 2010-05-20 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: notmuch
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 353 bytes --]
What's the current state of the art in merging tags from multiple
machines?
In my own case the contents of the mail store can be considered
identical on the different machines. Automated tagging is mostly fine -
it can just happen on each of the machines. Any hand-added tags are a
problem, though.
dme.
--
David Edmondson, http://dme.org
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: multiple machine tagging
2010-05-20 8:25 multiple machine tagging David Edmondson
@ 2010-05-20 16:28 ` Jesse Rosenthal
2014-09-15 13:49 ` David Edmondson
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jesse Rosenthal @ 2010-05-20 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Edmondson, notmuch
On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:25:42 +0100, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:
> What's the current state of the art in merging tags from multiple
> machines?
About the same, I think. I had started trying to figure out a way to do a
smarter dump (only dumping changed info) for my distributed
tagging/bug-tracking idea, and had some early success, though the python
implementation kills some of the speed gains. (Do play with it though!)
But in your case, dumping probably isn't the lag so much as restoring,
right?
What about:
nm dump master>master-dump; nm dump copy >copy-dump;
diff copy-dump master-dump | grep "^>" | etc...
This could all be scripted with scp or curl to do the networking
between machines.
Smarter (history- and namespace-aware) dumping could only improve this,
of course, and is very possible. But the abovr approach seems like it
would remove the restore bottleneck (unless I misunderstand how restore
works with unlisted messages).
Best,
Jesse
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: multiple machine tagging
2010-05-20 8:25 multiple machine tagging David Edmondson
2010-05-20 16:28 ` Jesse Rosenthal
@ 2014-09-15 13:49 ` David Edmondson
2014-09-15 14:14 ` W. Trevor King
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Edmondson @ 2014-09-15 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: notmuch
On Thu, May 20 2010, David Edmondson wrote:
(Wow, was it really more than four years ago?)
> What's the current state of the art in merging tags from multiple
> machines?
>
> In my own case the contents of the mail store can be considered
> identical on the different machines. Automated tagging is mostly fine
> - it can just happen on each of the machines. Any hand-added tags are
> a problem, though.
Is there any significant change to this picture?
I've been backing up my tags using 'notmuch dump' and a simple "newest
wins" merge (so that I don't lose tags for messages that are not in the
database at the time of the dump) followed by git.
This is okay for a backup solution (I've needed it a couple of times!),
but not ideal for a multi-machine environment.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: multiple machine tagging
2014-09-15 13:49 ` David Edmondson
@ 2014-09-15 14:14 ` W. Trevor King
2014-09-15 14:26 ` David Edmondson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: W. Trevor King @ 2014-09-15 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Edmondson; +Cc: notmuch
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 826 bytes --]
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:49:16PM +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Thu, May 20 2010, David Edmondson wrote:
> (Wow, was it really more than four years ago?)
>
> > What's the current state of the art in merging tags from multiple
> > machines?
> >
> > In my own case the contents of the mail store can be considered
> > identical on the different machines. Automated tagging is mostly fine
> > - it can just happen on each of the machines. Any hand-added tags are
> > a problem, though.
>
> Is there any significant change to this picture?
Does nmbug not do this for you? This is exactly what it was designed
to do (sync tags).
Cheers,
Trevor
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: multiple machine tagging
2014-09-15 14:14 ` W. Trevor King
@ 2014-09-15 14:26 ` David Edmondson
2014-09-15 15:30 ` W. Trevor King
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Edmondson @ 2014-09-15 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: W. Trevor King; +Cc: notmuch
On Mon, Sep 15 2014, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:49:16PM +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
>> On Thu, May 20 2010, David Edmondson wrote:
>> (Wow, was it really more than four years ago?)
>>
>> > What's the current state of the art in merging tags from multiple
>> > machines?
>> >
>> > In my own case the contents of the mail store can be considered
>> > identical on the different machines. Automated tagging is mostly fine
>> > - it can just happen on each of the machines. Any hand-added tags are
>> > a problem, though.
>>
>> Is there any significant change to this picture?
>
> Does nmbug not do this for you? This is exactly what it was designed
> to do (sync tags).
Perhaps. Is anyone using it for personal tag sync?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: multiple machine tagging
2014-09-15 14:26 ` David Edmondson
@ 2014-09-15 15:30 ` W. Trevor King
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: W. Trevor King @ 2014-09-15 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Edmondson; +Cc: notmuch
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 998 bytes --]
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:26:26PM +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15 2014, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > Does nmbug not do this for you? This is exactly what it was designed
> > to do (sync tags).
>
> Perhaps. Is anyone using it for personal tag sync?
I will once my Python translation lands [1], which will let me get
back to 'nmbug init' [2] ;). Once it's easy to initialize a new
repository for all your tags (or some other subset), I think the nmbug
route will be pretty straightforward.
Cheers,
Trevor
[1]: id:e630b6763e9d0771718afee41ea15b29bb4a1de8.1409935538.git.wking%40tremily.us
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.notmuch.general/19007
[2]: id:05ccd672f55444f74da62250e2305fb84fdc6c42.1404678709.git.wking@tremily.us
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.notmuch.general/18626/focus=18630
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-09-15 15:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-05-20 8:25 multiple machine tagging David Edmondson
2010-05-20 16:28 ` Jesse Rosenthal
2014-09-15 13:49 ` David Edmondson
2014-09-15 14:14 ` W. Trevor King
2014-09-15 14:26 ` David Edmondson
2014-09-15 15:30 ` W. Trevor King
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://yhetil.org/notmuch.git/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).