From: Akshay H. <lis...@ak...> - 2024-11-19 04:39:01
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Hello! First of all, thank you so much for isync; I've used it for over a year now and I have nothing but good things to say about it. I updated to isync 1.5.0 recently and noticed that my console logs from mbsync are now a more verbose, and to me personally-harder to read at a glance: Processed 40 box(es) in 1 channel(s), pulled 0 new message(s) and 0 flag update(s), expunged 0 message(s) from near side, pushed 0 new message(s) and 0 flag update(s), expunged 0 message(s) from far side. The previous version of isync I was using (v1.4.4) had an output that I much preferred over the current one: C: 0/1 B: 21/40 F: +0/0 *0/0 #0/0 -0/0 N: +0/0 *0/0 #0/0 -0/0 I imagine a lot of people have mbsync daemonized or just redirect all outputs to the blackhole but I like to run it in the foreground, which is why I really valued the concise output of the previous version. Is there a way I can get the older output behavior? I played around with the debug category options but they seem to just give me more logs. P.S. Unrelated but I also couldn't find a donation link anywhere on the sourceforge page. Is there a way for me to do so? Cheers, -- Akshay |
From: Oswald B. <osw...@gm...> - 2024-11-19 11:24:17
|
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 08:22:21PM -0800, Akshay Hegde via isync-devel wrote: >I updated to isync 1.5.0 recently and noticed that my console logs from >mbsync are now a more verbose, and to me personally-harder to read at >a glance: > > Processed 40 box(es) in 1 channel(s), > pulled 0 new message(s) and 0 flag update(s), > expunged 0 message(s) from near side, > pushed 0 new message(s) and 0 flag update(s), > expunged 0 message(s) from far side. > >The previous version of isync I was using (v1.4.4) had an output that >I much preferred over the current one: > > C: 0/1 B: 21/40 F: +0/0 *0/0 #0/0 -0/0 N: +0/0 *0/0 #0/0 -0/0 > pedantically, that's progress info (which you still see during operation), and it looks a bit stupid as a summary, because every number appears twice. now, i'll admit that i find the verbose summary hard to parse myself, as the numbers get kind of lost between the words. i just didn't have a better idea ... i suppose i could just use the progress format but without duplicating the numbers. the meaning is already explained in the manual, so good enough? >P.S. Unrelated but I also couldn't find a donation link anywhere on the >sourceforge page. Is there a way for me to do so? > you can paypal me on this address. (prefer "friends and family" transfer; marking it as a donation just makes paypal skim off some of it.) |
From: Akshay H. <lis...@ak...> - 2024-11-20 02:26:25
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
On 2024-11-19 12:24 +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen via isync-devel wrote: > pedantically, that's progress info (which you still see during > operation), and it looks a bit stupid as a summary, because every number > appears twice. > > now, i'll admit that i find the verbose summary hard to parse myself, as > the numbers get kind of lost between the words. i just didn't have a > better idea ... > > i suppose i could just use the progress format but without duplicating > the numbers. the meaning is already explained in the manual, so good > enough? > Oh I see what you mean, yes I did wonder why the numbers were duplicated, I assumed there was _some_ reason. I really do like the progress outputs as a summary so I would love it if that was offered as an option without the duplicate numbers, but I would understand if that's something you don't really want to support. Like most new UIs, my initial reaction was 'oh I don't like that', but perhaps I just need to get used to it. > > P.S. Unrelated but I also couldn't find a donation link anywhere on the > > sourceforge page. Is there a way for me to do so? > > > you can paypal me on this address. (prefer "friends and family" > transfer; marking it as a donation just makes paypal skim off some of > it.) Sent, thank you ;) -- Akshay |
From: Akshay H. <lis...@ak...> - 2024-11-21 02:57:17
|
On 2024-11-20 16:05 +0100, Daniel Tameling wrote: >On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:24:09PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen via isync-devel wrote: >> >> now, i'll admit that i find the verbose summary hard to parse myself, as >> the numbers get kind of lost between the words. i just didn't have a >> better idea ... >> > >I think it would help to put all numbers at the start of the line. >And I would prefer it if the same actions would be grouped together, >instead of all far and near side output. Something like this: > >19/2 new message(s)/flag update(s) pulled, >10/5 new message(s)/flag update(s) pushed, >0 message(s) expunged from near side, >3 message(s) expunged from far side. > >It's not very elegant, but I find it more readable. Yeah I think I like this instinctively; it's better organized. You'd still need the channels and mailboxes updated message but that's a minor note. My preference for a concise output would be something like this: Channels: 2 Boxes: 4 Far: +13 *42 #0 -0 Near: +7 *0 #0 -0 Essentially mimicking the progress output, but it's instantly more understandable (in my opinion) at a quick glance. -- Akshay |
From: Daniel T. <tam...@gm...> - 2024-11-20 15:05:36
|
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:24:09PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen via isync-devel wrote: > > now, i'll admit that i find the verbose summary hard to parse myself, as > the numbers get kind of lost between the words. i just didn't have a > better idea ... > I think it would help to put all numbers at the start of the line. And I would prefer it if the same actions would be grouped together, instead of all far and near side output. Something like this: 19/2 new message(s)/flag update(s) pulled, 10/5 new message(s)/flag update(s) pushed, 0 message(s) expunged from near side, 3 message(s) expunged from far side. It's not very elegant, but I find it more readable. Best regards, Daniel |
From: Oswald B. <osw...@gm...> - 2024-11-23 14:09:14
|
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 06:26:06PM -0800, Akshay Hegde wrote: >Like most new UIs, my initial reaction was 'oh I don't like that', but >perhaps I just need to get used to it. > i thought that myself, but i'm at the point where i've concluded that it was simply a stupid idea. On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 04:05:26PM +0100, Daniel Tameling wrote: >I think it would help to put all numbers at the start of the line. >[...] >It's not very elegant, but I find it more readable. > yes, exactly. better than the verbose version, but not really better than the short version, imo. On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 06:56:59PM -0800, Akshay Hegde wrote: >My preference for a concise output would be something like this: > > Channels: 2 Boxes: 4 Far: +13 *42 #0 -0 Near: +7 *0 #0 -0 > so the short version, but with words instead of letters. that makes it half-self-explanatory ... i thought i'd just go with the short version, but it looks kinda stupid. so i'll go with your idea. i tried less spacing, but that was significantly harder to read, which you probably noticed yourself. on the downside, now there is a somewhat higher risk of exceeding 80 columns, and in a log file internal spacing looks kinda out of place (and i don't want to use a different format there). i also tried comma-space, but that looks too noisy again. >> you can paypal me on this address. > >Sent, thank you ;) > thanks! |
From: Akshay H. <lis...@ak...> - 2024-11-23 23:26:15
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
On 2024-11-23 15:09 +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen via isync-devel wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 06:26:06PM -0800, Akshay Hegde wrote: > > Like most new UIs, my initial reaction was 'oh I don't like that', but > > perhaps I just need to get used to it. > > > i thought that myself, but i'm at the point where i've concluded that it > was simply a stupid idea. > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 04:05:26PM +0100, Daniel Tameling wrote: > > I think it would help to put all numbers at the start of the line. > > [...] > > It's not very elegant, but I find it more readable. > > > yes, exactly. better than the verbose version, but not really better > than the short version, imo. > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 06:56:59PM -0800, Akshay Hegde wrote: > > My preference for a concise output would be something like this: > > > > Channels: 2 Boxes: 4 Far: +13 *42 #0 -0 Near: +7 *0 #0 -0 > > > so the short version, but with words instead of letters. that makes it > half-self-explanatory ... > > i thought i'd just go with the short version, but it looks kinda stupid. > > so i'll go with your idea. > i tried less spacing, but that was significantly harder to read, which > you probably noticed yourself. on the downside, now there is a somewhat > higher risk of exceeding 80 columns, and in a log file internal spacing > looks kinda out of place (and i don't want to use a different format > there). i also tried comma-space, but that looks too noisy again. > > > > you can paypal me on this address. > > > > Sent, thank you ;) > > > thanks! > > > _______________________________________________ > isync-devel mailing list > isy...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel See, I didn't even realize there was a risk of exceeding 80 chars. :) I was just trying to be as clear as possible. You are of course, right. The entire reason why I even thought to post is because I like the progress output so much; it's already so clear. So for me, there's really nothing much to improve on, except to print out the final statistics without the dup'd numbers like you said. After using the verbose output for a week or so, I don't mind it _that_ much now, which just goes to show how quickly I can change my mind-and to not put too much weight into what I may say I prefer... :) I know you will come up with something that has a nice balance between readability and conciseness and I'll look forward to trying that out! Cheers, -- Akshay |
From: Akshay H. <lis...@ak...> - 2025-03-15 20:49:38
|
Hi! Just wanted to update this thread to mention how much I've been enjoying the new output from isync 1.5.1. Thank you so much! -- Akshay |
From: Akshay H. <lis...@ak...> - 2024-11-21 03:02:31
|
(had to resend above message, accidentally replied directly to Daniel instead of replying to the list, whoops, sorry!) -- Akshay |