Singlethreading patch series

Sebastian Spaeth Sebastian at
Fri Jan 14 16:20:04 GMT 2011

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:34:39 +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s-dev at> wrote:
> What about (d) ?
> d) Like (a) but change patch 3 to do away the "catch-it all exceptions"
> and only catch already known exceptions?
> This way we would have users work with us (by reporting issues) in a
> _real_ use case manner. Or do you plan (...if it were possible) to go
> through all the underlying code and library to check what is raised and
> when?

Sure, can do that easily enough. It would just be 2 IMHO mostly separate
topics in one. But I have no problem with that. The only problem is that
*I* don't know which exceptions we should except in those cases. I guess
some form of network interruption would throw exceptions, but that might
need further investigation. That's why I had proposed to postpone the
exception handling to a later topic.

If you prefer d) I'll rework the patches to basically do away with the
exception handling in those "catch-it-all" situations and we will need
to add exceptions again as we go.

> As a side note I would ask you to add a brief inter-diff summary in your
> introduction mail and the inter-diff (attached or following) from the
> previous topic release. This makes the review code much easier on (big
> enough) topics.

inter-diffs? ouch that is going to be hard to produce :-). I'll see what
i can come up with. I'll add some verbal description at what has changed
at the very least.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the OfflineIMAP-project mailing list