On Sat, Feb 12 2022, David Bremner wrote:
> Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> writes:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 12 2022, Michael J. Gruber wrote:
>>
>> Only thing that came into mind are directory timestamps... if directory
>> (m)time is same as before notmuch will not scan it for files...
>>
>> ... following that if the granularity of directory timestamp were 1 second,
>> then it could easily happen than first one new message is not seen, and
>> next time there is one extra message to be see...
>
> What do you think about adding --full-scan to the notmuch-new invocation
> in add_message? It doesn't make any tests fail and is about the same
> speed. I need to do a few more trials, but first time through it was
> actually faster (!), maybe because the cache is hot
Does such a change hide "buggy" functionality ?
Or do we consider notmuch new buggy if it does not notice all new messages
arrived every time ?
The timestamping sounds like a perfect explanation of what I've been seeing. Unfortunately, I can't reproduce the issue "reliably" (with a certain probability), and so if everything succeeds with --full-scan 10 times it still does not mean much.
As I understand, notmuch new without --full-sync may have issues when the time resolution is too low (or operations too fast) and will pick a message on the next run, so it's not really buggy - it uses a shortcut that may be too quick but does not loose messages in the long run.
Michael