Gregor Zattler <telegraph@gmx.net> writes: > Hi David, > * David Bremner <david@tethera.net> [26. Jan. 2014]: >> Gregor Zattler <telegraph@gmx.net> writes: >>> I consider this to be a bug. Instead notmuch should simply >>> ignore the symlink. >>> >> >> Since there is a test for specifically this behaviour, I'd have to say >> it's a design decision you don't agree with, not a bug ;). > > May I ask why this is so? > Purely from memory (I wasn't involved, and didn't dig up the the discussion): - a common use case is linking different trees into one notmuch-index tree. - if a subtree disappears (e.g. by a network failure), then the choices are stop the index or ignore the missing files. - in the latter case, all tags from "deleted" messages are lost So, a simple solution which avoids data loss is to abort the index process. A more complicated solution would be possible of course, but nobody proposed it (or more importantly, did it) yet. d