Bug#735261: mutiple upstream bugs

[Shai Berger <shai@platonix.com>]

On Sunday 18 January 2015 21:46:52 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Shai Berger wrote:
> > On Friday 16 January 2015 01:45:53 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >> > However, the problem reported here is not a usability problem. If a
> >> > mail client losing record of which mails have been read and which
> >> > haven't isn't "non-serious data loss", I can't tell what is.
> >> 
> >> Actual data loss.
> > 
> > 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?

By that argument, there really shouldn't be any data loss bugs, because all 
data should be easily restorable from backup.

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.

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?

Thanks,
	Shai.