aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffhomepage
path: root/TODO
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'TODO')
-rw-r--r--TODO31
1 files changed, 23 insertions, 8 deletions
diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index c5c748f6..7ca07704 100644
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -15,11 +15,26 @@ Think about this race condition:
Client asks for the thread to be archived.
The bug here is that email that was never read will be
- archived. That's bad. With the command set above, the user can
- avoid the problem by just not running "notmuch new" while reading
- mail, but the same problems exists with the API. One possible
- solution would be to store an additional timestamp with each mail
- document for the time it was added to the database. Then searches
- could return a timestamp, and the client could pass that same
- timestamp back to the archive command to not modify any messages
- with a timestamp newer than what's passed.
+ archived. That's bad. The fix for the above is for the client to
+ archive the individual messages already retrieved and shown, not
+ the thread. (And in fact, we don't even have functions for removing
+ tags on threads.)
+
+ But this one is harder to fix:
+
+ A client executes "notmuch search"
+ While user is reading, new mail is added to database for the thread
+ Client asks for a thread to be archived.
+
+ To support this operation, (archiving a thread without even seeing
+ the individual messages), we might need to provide a command to
+ archive a thread as a whole. The problem is actually easy to fix
+ for a persistent client. It can onto the originally retrieved
+ thread objects which can hold onto the originally retrieved
+ messages. So archiving those thread objects, (and not newly created
+ thread objects), will be safe.
+
+ It's harder to fix the non-persistent "notmuch" client. One
+ approach is to simply tell the user to not run "notmuch new"
+ between reading the results of "notmuch search" and executing
+ "notmuch archive-thread" (or whatever we name it).