Ken wrote:
I was just wondering, since the sequence checking code was first in
m_convert(). I just checked; if you create a numeric sequence by hand,
yes, you totally can use it!
At your own peril. It clearly violates the documentation.
So the default case is you don't need the
second call to folder_read(). I think what we should do here is:
- If you don't give the -seq flag to pick, don't make the second call to
folder_read().
Here's an irrelevant observation, given that we don't want to remove
-seq at this point: pick -seq has always bothered me a little as
being impure. I would argue that the output of pick should be fed to
mark if you want to define any sequences.
- Create a new option to control whether or not you want to maintain
a lock during the whole run of inc and pick. I say default to NOT
having the lock during the full run of these commands and have two
calls to folder_read(); people with 100K+ messages in a single folder
could enable this flag. I do not know what to call this flag; -fulllock?
Too many 'l's in a row, for one.
What do others think?
Somehow that ended up backwards from what I think would be the goal,
which is to have only one folder_read() on large folders. Would
this work: add, and default to, -lock? If a user trusts themself
to do only one operation at a time, and they want the speed, they
could use -nolock.
David
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers