Hi, * Thomas Glanzmann [06-07-12 10:19:44 +0200] wrote: [...]
I don't like that at all. I am almost sure that you're goind to break things like that. If you ignore some headers, please set them explicit to zero. So that it is easy to see what is happening and find a bug if one of the headers need to be set to a different value. Like:
header->data = NULL;
Okay, I prefer whitelisting while you prefer blacklisting. Preparing a patch in either flavour isn't difficult, I guess.
But: things will almost certainly break either way in the beginning as we need to find out which members we don't want first.
I we were to extend the hcache in a way that enables it storing updated messages, we also need to ignore things like:
header->offset header->index header->scoreand not just pointers as these depend on the runtime environment (including user config).
I guess it'll take some time until we really will have found out which members need to be ignored to not fool mutt upon restoring them.
bye, Rocco -- :wq!