Re: Preparing hypermail cvs commit/merge, suggestions?

From: John Finlay <>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 15:51:34 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Just to add more fuel to the fire, I've also been hacking on hypermail (2a23 base). The attached outlines the changes I've made. If there is interest in my changes, we can talk about how and when to integrate them.

It sounds to me like a feature freeze and 2.0 final version is of most interest at this point in time. Seems reasonable to me to solidify the current 2a24 code before embarking on adding significant new features. Likewise it seems like time to try to develop a feature list for the next release (2.2 or 3.0?) and then a plan for integrating/developing those features.



		 A Variant of Hypermail-2a23 by John Finlay


Hypermail-2a23jf is based on hypermail-2a23. The external functionality is largely the same but the main internal routines have been rewritten to enhance readability and to provide a more robust implementation especially for large archives that are incrementally updated a message at a time. These changes are similar to changes I made in an earlier version of hypermail (1.02f) and decided to port to the latest development version. While hypermail-2a23 is a great improvement over earlier hypermails (1.02f, etc.), I felt that some of the improvements I had made would also be useful going forward. Like most features, these were developed to meet the email archiving needs in my workplace environment.


This code has been tested with a number of mailboxes with various numbers (1-2300) of messages on both Solaris 2.6 and Debian Linux 2.0. More testing needs to be done to check out all the features of hypermail and explore the bug space.  


The enhancements are:


In addition to the above enhancements, a number of revisions to the existing code were made either to enhance readability and mantainability or to support the above enhancements. Major revisions include:


The changes made have a small negative affect on performance for operations that create an archive from a single mailbox. For example, a 2300 message archive is processed 5-10% slower on an ultraSparc 1. This is mostly due to the parsing changes. Using the memory saving option slows processing by another 40% since saving to disk, reading back and resaving incurs a substantial penalty.

However, incremental updates are processed faster for archives with more than 1000 messages - twice as fast for 2000 message archives; much faster for much larger archives.

I plan to work on improving the performance of the parsing routines next. Received on Wed 15 Sep 1999 12:52:17 AM GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat 13 Mar 2010 03:46:11 AM GMT GMT