On 2018-06-11 20:46:51 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:28:09AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-06-11 10:30:27 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2018-06-11 10:18:07 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 04:00:55AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > > On 2018-06-11 08:07:22 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > > > > What if instead, we changed the code from a ">" comparison to > > > > > > a "!=" comparison. This would force a rescan if the mtime were > > > > > > reset backwards: > > > > This doesn't have any effect. > > The maildir_check_mailbox() performs a stat first, then scans for new > mail. How is it that the messages are added during/after the scan but > the directory mtime doesn't change? If unison were resetting mtime, it > shouldn't be to the time when we scanned but didn't find all the > messages.
I've just checked: unison doesn't reset the mtime on the "new" directory. For instance: Initially, drwx------ 2 vlefevre vlefevre 135168 2018-06-11 15:22:00 new/ Then I ran unison, giving: UNISON 2.48.3 started propagating changes at 15:22:07.33 on 11 Jun 2018 [...] UNISON 2.48.3 finished propagating changes at 15:22:07.39 on 11 Jun 2018 and drwx------ 2 vlefevre vlefevre 135168 2018-06-11 15:22:07 new/ BTW, it would be great if Mutt debug messages could contain timestamps with a subsecond precision (even though unison doesn't detail the timestamps between the above 2 messages). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
