On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > (hi list -- i'm new here; don't be afraid to explain things to me that > seem obvious to you, or correct my vocabulary if i'm using it wrong) > > On 11/12/2010 08:11 PM, Carl Worth wrote: > > But I suppose it's as simple a matter of creating a new "top-level > > message" term in the database. The split operation would set this > > term. The explicit join operation would clear it, and the implicit join > > operation would have to be made to respect it by avoiding merging any > > top-level messages as a child of some other message. I haven't thought > > through exactly how that would work in the implementation, but hopefully > > it wouldn't be too hard. > > my current understanding is that a not-uncommon use case is to have two > separate notmuch instances, synchronized by syncing maildirs and > tagsets. Would such a thread-split be syncable between two notmuch > instances? It won't be syncable without a special support somewhere in notmuch. -Michal