*bump* Brendan, and / or Thomas, Can you make a judgement about this patch? I decided to bump this thread because, as I've noted, nobody has responded to David's message. Furthermore, it's the only patch I use that has not been applied to CVS.. Most mailers have this functionality, e.g. through the display of a paper clip or something like that. I would *really* find this useful. Thinking about it some more: would it make sense to alter this patch somewhat, and to: - not automatically parse the tree for Maildir and IMAP mailfolders, but display a "?" (or something like that, or nothing at all) instead? - cache the attachment information for these types of folders? Please comment.. René * David Champion <dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [24-02-2005 18:21]: > http://home.uchicago.edu/~dgc/sw/mutt/patch-1.5.8.dgc.attach.5 > > Thomas, I know you've previously stated that you won't include this > patch, citing (a) concerns about the performance hit to the "extra" > MIME tree parse, and (b) memory concumption with the parsed data > accumulation. Since a MIME tree parse is crucial to the feature, I > can't really argue with that. However, it performs fine to me, and the > tree parse doesn't occur if you're not using the feature. (That is, > if you have no %V elements in $index_format.) So if there's any harm > done, it's only to people who expressly sign up for it. Moreover, the > cached tree-parsing data is tossed when this patch no longer needs it, > so memory usage remains tame. This impedes performance of the ~V search > function and of page display when you use %V, but it saves the memory. > > I've been asked to try again, though -- see another thread -- so please > review this for consideration. > > This patch has been stable (at version 5) since March 14, 2002, for > mutt-1.3.28. All updates since then have just been refreshes for new > mutt releases, with no changes to the implementation itself. I have no > firm plans to make significant changes to it, unless doing so puts it > closer to CVS. > > I've considered modifying mutt's envelope structure to retain the number > of attachments, so that I can still be conservative about memory (see > above) while not damaging performance. Then a MIME parse would only be > needed (a) for new messages, or (b) when the parameters of attachment > counting change. If that makes it more appealing for CVS by addressing > more performance concerns, I'll do it. > > -- > -D. dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx NSIT::ENSS > "So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill... > and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water > mark -- the place where the wave finally broke and rolled back." -HST -- René Clerc - (rene@xxxxxxxx) - PGP: 0x9ACE0AC7 Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Attachment:
pgphWPqVMg35E.pgp
Description: PGP signature