Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> writes: > > this doesn't seem like a correct characterization of it, unless we're > misunderstanding each other. > > it looks to me like each notmuch database *would* be coupled with > exactly one mailstore, given this proposal. is that right? > > if the library tried to open the database on its own, it would look at > the database's stored maildir_root path. Right, with the possibility of the user overriding the maildir, at least at the library level. > or am i missing something? > >> That probably allows a few new kinds of user error; I'm imagining >> runing notmuch new with mismatched database and maildir, and happily >> deleteing all of the database documents. > > yikes! still, i agree that in general i'd rather point notmuch at the > database and have it discover everything it needs to from that; rather > than the current approach of the split config file and database, which > seems cumbersome and error-prone in other ways. > > that said, i *definitely* prefer the database identifying the mailstore > (as you've done here) rather than the other way around. > > one final question: for portable databases, which live on a removable > volume, or which are on networked-accessible storage and might be > mounted in different places on different computers, do we have a way to > protect them from the "whoops, mailstore is missing because you are on > the wrong host" or ("…because you mounted the USB stick at /Media/foo > instead of /Volumes/foo") scenario? That's something that needs to be thought through. Essentially the same issue I mentioned. d _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch