Bug#735261: mutiple upstream bugs
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Shai Berger <shai@platonix.com> wrote:
>> > So, the bits marking messages as "read" or "unread" are not data? What,
>> > pray tell, are they?
>>
>> Easily recreatable bit flags.
>>
>
> So data isn't lost if it is "easily recreatable"? Really?
No.
> By that argument, there really shouldn't be any data loss bugs, because all
> data should be easily restorable from backup.
Also no.
> Those "easily recreatable" bits represent a significant part of my mail
> workflow. Almost any data can be recreated by repeating the work that created
> it. Your claims essentially come down to "workflows based on 'read status' are
> invalid or unimportant". Well, they're damned important to me.
Then you're either choosing the wrong mail client or not doing enough
to help upstream scratch that itch.
> I suspect that this discussion is going nowhere, but I still would like you to
> answer one more question: Can you describe the difference between "serious" and
> "non-serious" data loss?
The difference is "actual" vs. "perceived" data loss.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: