TODO: Remove a couple of since-completed items.

"notmuch tag" is implemented now and seems to work great (and fast).

As for the race condition, as noted in the description we're removing
it's not exposed directly in the API, but only in a client that
allows for looping over search results and removing the inbox tag
from all of them. But then, that's exactly what the "notmuch tag"
command does. So, as discussed, we've now documented that command
to highlight the issue. Problem resolved, (as well as we can).

diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index fa85eb7fdc8685da42e63d3dbaa203980b26cd30..8e81b57dc683e6db28af1b6b1d65302a90c3bb27 100644 (file)
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -1,6 +1,3 @@
-Write a "notmuch tag" command to add/remove tags from messages
-matching a search query.
-

 Rename notmuch_thread_results_t and notmuch_message_results_t to
 notmuch_threads_t and notmuch_messages_t respectively.
 
 Rename notmuch_thread_results_t and notmuch_message_results_t to
 notmuch_threads_t and notmuch_messages_t respectively.
 


@@ -18,35 +15,3 @@ Audit everything for dealing with out-of-memory (and drop xutil.c).
 Write a test suite.
 
 Achieve 100% test coverage with the test suite.
 Write a test suite.
 
 Achieve 100% test coverage with the test suite.

-
-Think about this race condition:
-
-       A client executes "notmuch search"
-       Then executes "notmuch show" on a thread
-       While user is reading, new mail is added to database for the thread
-       Client asks for the thread to be archived.
-
-   The bug here is that email that was never read will be
-   archived. That's bad. The fix for the above is for the client to
-   archive the individual messages already retrieved and shown, not
-   the thread. (And in fact, we don't even have functions for removing
-   tags on threads.)
-
-   But this one is harder to fix:
-
-       A client executes "notmuch search"
-       While user is reading, new mail is added to database for the thread
-       Client asks for a thread to be archived.
-
-   To support this operation, (archiving a thread without even seeing
-   the individual messages), we might need to provide a command to
-   archive a thread as a whole. The problem is actually easy to fix
-   for a persistent client. It can onto the originally retrieved
-   thread objects which can hold onto the originally retrieved
-   messages. So archiving those thread objects, (and not newly created
-   thread objects), will be safe.
-
-   It's harder to fix the non-persistent "notmuch" client. One
-   approach is to simply tell the user to not run "notmuch new"
-   between reading the results of "notmuch search" and executing
-   "notmuch archive-thread" (or whatever we name it).