See the calendar for a model how this could be implemented.

https://github.com/xapian/xapian/pull/256

I managed to get rid of this crash with a patch to xapian (https://github.com/cmollekopf/xapian-core/commit/6061b69c4b2f6b9d310558df1b285b5125364de8) that I have yet to upstream (don't know if they'd accept it since it seems like a compiler bug).

In T10813#182631, @wozniak wrote:

By the way, I had some (not a lot) experience with QML so if I were to be pointed in the right direction, I *might* be able to submit a patch for this.

In T10813#182629, @wozniak wrote:

This would be relatively simple to add, but I wouldn't want to have that as an option in the UI

I think it would be *nice* to have it in the UI, but I understand the reasons you might not want it. The reason it would be nice is that on support calls it's easier to tell the user to toggle an UI option, than to mess with a config file.

On the other hand, config-file-only option means users would be less likely to disable it themselves. So I can live with that!

Git branch visualizations were indeed a major inspiration =)
Where we'd put it exactly is indeed up for debate, I think it would in either case have to be in a location that remains available as you scroll down the conversation.

By the way, I had some (not a lot) experience with QML so if I were to be pointed in the right direction, I *might* be able to submit a patch for this.

Regarding the mock-up, I feel it's a bit unnatural to add the thread visualisation widget in the e-mail message view. It would work better in the mail list view. Perhaps a git branch visualisation would work better here somehow? Like here:
https://git.occrp.org/libre/property-map/network/master

This would be relatively simple to add, but I wouldn't want to have that as an option in the UI

This would be relatively simple to add, but I wouldn't want to have that as an option in the UI. Would a configuration-file option work and is there a concrete deployment planned that actually requires such an option?

While it is indeed not currently possible to make any sense of the thread structure in the conversation view (given it's just a flat timeline), I'm afraid having a tree view for mails is not among the goals for now. I contemplated having an extra visualization for the tree structure to complement the conversation view at some point, but have no concrete plans to pursue that further at the moment. M31 is an example mockup of such a solution. Something like in that mockup could be a nice addition if you'd like to work on it, but I'll close this ticket for now as the tree-view in the maillist (the center column), is not going to happen.

In T10599#178637, @mbohlender wrote:

I like the general direction. It gives a very clean first impression.

Some issues:

1. affordance There is no indication that is is possible to write something under the subject line. I am afraid some users will try to fit their whole email in the subject field. Then again, once the press "Enter" it should all become clear. Some placeholder text for the body could solve this issue.

I like the general direction. It gives a very clean first impression.

This would be 'Epic'.

fwiw, memory-hole also breaks threading (because those headers are also encrypted).

We now execute "kill $(pidof sink_synchronizer)" at the end of the wrapper script to hopefully avoid running multiple synchronizer instances in parallel.

This should be fixed as of bd1ec892f40b24092dcb52a39fd7ffb2e22f5fde

I updated gpg related stuff and we're building sasl ourselves. Seems to work just fine.

Note that clang seems broken, but gcc builds everything fine.