From: Ken Murchison (no email)
Date: Mon Sep 24 2007 - 13:53:28 EDT
Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:44:55 +0100 (BST), "David Carter" <> said:
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>>
>>> We still need to sync the final last_uid, which may be greater than
>>> the UID of the maximum message.
>> Oops, yes. Replacing last_uid for the last batch should be good enough.
>>
>>> (though I think there's a separate check later that does that if they
>>> still don't match... I really should test-case this!)
>> I don't think so. There is a separate test for UIDLAST if
>> do_mailbox_work() finds that it has no messages to UPLOAD.
>
> Yeah, you're right. I've got a simpler rewrite of the patch here that
> does update_uidlast(mailbox) at the end if there's nothing in the
> index_list.
Attached is my rewrite against CVS. I removed duplicate code that
resulted from having one for() loop with a special case if() inside (It
not uses a for() loop nested inside a do() loop). The patch doesn't
look simpler because my version of diff appears to be braindead.
-- Kenneth Murchison Systems Programmer Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer Carnegie Mellon University
|
|
|