Singlethreading patch series

Nicolas Sebrecht nicolas.s-dev at
Fri Jan 14 18:20:58 GMT 2011

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 05:20:04PM +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> 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.

Yes. We might need to expand the traceback with the exception name raised.

> > 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.

Verbal comments was not my point even it's a good practice. inter-diffs
can easily be done like that:

  $ git diff --stat --summary -M topic-v1..topic-v2
  $ git diff topic-v1..topic-v2

Nicolas Sebrecht

More information about the OfflineIMAP-project mailing list