Re: Something odd in knail from 3.5.9 on F8

["Tom Spink" <tspink@gmail.com>]

2008/5/25 Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net>:
> On Sunday 25 May 2008, Tom Spink wrote:
>>2008/5/25 Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net>:
>>> Greetings all;
>>>
>>> Yesterday I needed to email a patch file I had just generated to the
>>> maintainer of the OS for a "legacy" computer, so I fired up the new mail
>>> by clicking on his name in a previous email, wrote a short msg and tried
>>> to attach the patch. But regardless of how many times I backed out of the
>>> directory & then went back in, the directory listing I was being shown was
>>> exactly as it had existed about 36 hours ago.  No new files could be seen.
>>>  So I could not attach it, nor include it as text in that msg.
>>> .
>>> After I had sent the msg, I shut kmail down using its quit button, gave it
>>> 30 secs to clean up and disappear from the htop list, then restarted it,
>>> at which point the newer and missing files were then visible and I sent
>>> the patch using the exact same procedure.
>>>
>>> Currently running locally built 2.6.26-rc2 for a kernel.  So which
>>> direction do I point the accusatory finger here folks?
>>
>>Hi Gene,
>>
>>Are you able to reproduce the problem?  Were you able to view the
>>"real" contents of the directory in, say, a terminal (with ls) or
>>Konqueror (or whatever you prefer), while KMail was acting up?
>>
> Yes, ls or ls -l displayed them correctly in several other terminal shells,
> while kmail couldn't see them.  But, kmail had not looked at that directory
> since launching it at the last bootup till then, so I can't quite bring myself
> to believe it was looking at old cached info, that was its first look there
> since bootup a day before.
>
> And now of course it works.  Same kernel, same kmail.  Go figure, but I think it
> will take some of that new-fangled math to make 2+2=4 in this case. :-\

Heh, cool.  I guess it's some weird "KDE-caching" Heisenbug.  Although
I'm no KDE expert at all, and don't know how their file browsers work.

> Thanks Tom.

No problem.

> Cheers, Gene

-- 
Tom Spink