On 01Feb2013 21:10, Derek Martin <inva...@pizzashack.org> wrote:
| On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 11:20:37AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
| > Given that they're both Maildirs on the same filesystem, why doesn't mutt
| > take this more efficient (both in time and disc space) approach? Just naive
| > use of an existing "save-message" library routine.
|
| I find your surprise to be very surprising. :)
|
| - Copy = actual copy... implies multiple physical copies, which you
| don't get with hard links
<save-message> implies a delete in the source mailbox. You don't need a
copy. (Yes, I know <sync> is a separate op, breaking this metaphor
somewhat.)
| - Not all systems support hard links
Rolls eyes. Sure, but all _my_ systems do! UNIX dammit!
| - Even on systems that support hard links, you need to either detect
| that the filesystem is the same, or try it and fall back to making
| a copy.
Doing the latter is really easy. link(), if failure, copy. It's a single
if-statement.
Since mutt's <edit-message> makes a new copy anyway (absent the edit in
place patch that I only learnt about today), there's no real downside to
using hardlinks. (Ignoring outside other mail apps.) Procmail even
delivers to multiple mailboxes with hardlinks by default when possible.
| It could be an option...
Indeed. If I find the time (unlikely, alas, but I'll put it on my todo
wishlist) I might try to do this.
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au>
Gummi: I'm so smart! I'm so smart! S M R T. I mean, S M A R T!
- gu...@hengill.rhi.hi.is (Gudmundur Bjarni Josepsson)
