On Fri 2016-06-03 08:54:00 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> Sure, where do you think that kind of documentation is appropriate?
> There is the giant comment about the database schema in
> lib/database.cc. Actually I just noticed I already failed to update that
> for libconfig stuff.

That comment seems OK, but it won't be exposed to the people who are in
that middle range (python or ruby programmers but not C programmers).
Do we have a place for this kind of mid-level documenation?

> [ dkg wrote: ]
>>  * for messages which have multiple files, which file is actually indexed
>
> yes. Although rather than storing that, I think the right answer is more
> like "all of them".

I don't think we do this, do we?  Is this a bug?  is it tracked somewhere?

>> It's worth noticing that the stuff in "elsewhere" is the stuff that
>> won't propagate across a dump/restore unless it's explicitly in the dump
>> somehow.   We currently fail to restore thread-id and which file is
>> actually indexed across a dump/restore :/
>
> The thread-id is in some sense derived from the message itself. Not in a
> reproducable way, but still, the dump file is the minimal set of extra
> data needed to reconstruct an equivalent database (pax threading bugs).

This is exactly my point -- i don't care about reproducibility of the
exact numbering, but , the thread-id is *not* reproducible from the
message sets.  This is not only because of the ghost message leakage bug
documented in T590-thread-breakage.sh, but also because threads can be
joined by a message that is later removed (e.g., the "notmuch-join"
script in id:87egabu5ta.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net ).

>> I think you've convinced me that it's good to go ahead with the
>> properties, assuming it's scoped as defined above.  I still think that
>> we need a better story for upgrades to the dump format in general, but
>> maybe this isn't the place to make that particular case.
>
> I'm not sure what you have in mind, something more ambitious than the
> header added post 0.22?

Can you point me to the definition for that header?  i still don't
understand what the batch-tag:2 part means.  (sorry i haven't been
keeping up with the master branch lately!)

           --dkg