https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=467531
--- Comment #11 from tagwer...@innerjoin.org ---
(In reply to Stefan Brüns from comment #10)
> Claiming "Baloo needs a restart" when it does not puts Baloo in a bad light,
> and should be avoided.
Agree, reverting is right.
There were situations where baloo was "busy doing it own thing", not listening
and not reponding. The one I've the most experience dealing with is solved
here:
https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/baloo/-/merge_requests/148
The pending change for BTRFS systems should also help
https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/baloo/-/merge_requests/131
Fewer unneeded reindexings and smaller indexes. That would be a big step
forward.
We are left with the chance of a "stuck content indexer". There are going to be
things you can throw at baloo that can take ages to index, gigabyte .mbox
files for example or there was a PDF of a scientific plot that took a day to
extract. Baloo_file seems not to hear "the signal" if it is waiting for
baloo_file_extractor to finish (just double checked this on Neon Unstable with
a folder of .mbox files)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
