From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rlane@club.cc.cmu.edu (Rich Lane)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:16:03 -0400
Subject: [sup-talk] [PATCH] index log
In-Reply-To: <1251116226-sup-1373@peray>
References: <1250491123-19240-1-git-send-email-rlane@club.cc.cmu.edu>
	<1250948551-sup-2052@masanjin.net> <1251116226-sup-1373@peray>
Message-ID: <1251691269-sup-246@zyrg.net>

Excerpts from Nicolas Pouillard's message of Mon Aug 24 08:20:20 -0400 2009:
> Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Sat Aug 22 15:46:27 +0200 2009:
> > Reformatted excerpts from Rich Lane's message of 2009-08-16:
> > > Add a YAML logfile that records changes to the index and modify
> > > sup-dump to use this rather than the normal database.
> > 
> > I like this. I'm going to wait to apply it until the api refactoring
> > stuff is merged down to master though. Should be soon.
> 
> I'm wondering if a simpler format would not be better, I've patch
> in my sup copy do feed a file called ~/.sup/labels-mapping.log with
> lines like those:
> 
> 000e0cd20f80143822047118693d at google.com (unread inbox -> )
> 20090813213654.GA30223 at community.haskell.org (unread inbox patch -> patch)
> 1250148617-sup-6053 at oz.taruti.net (unread inbox sup -> sup)
> 1250281208-sup-4199 at masanjin.net (unread inbox sup -> sup)
> 
> Their are in the style of sup-dump output and there are pretty easy to manage
> by any tools.
> 
> Not to say that I don't like YAML, I am a pretty big fan of it; but here it
> seems overkill.
> 
> Best regards,
> 

I agree that YAML is overkill for what we're currently storing in the
log. The intention was to make this as foolproof for future expansion as
possible, but after some time thinking about it I haven't come up with
more fields to add (not that there still couldn't be, but I think it's
unlikely). I'll submit a simpler patch.

What do people think about replacing the current undo system with one
based on the label log? This would only be possible once we have
immediate label changes. I think it would simplify a lot of code.