From: Bron Gondwana (no email)
Date: Mon Sep 24 2007 - 18:34:26 EDT
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:53:28 -0400, "Ken Murchison" <> said:
> 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.
This still doesn't guarantee to update UIDLAST in the pathological case
where there are exactly max_count messages to be uploaded, not including
the final message in the list due to a UUID/GUID matchup - at least not
according to my reading of it.
Bron.
-- Bron Gondwana
|
|
|