1 Return-Path: <jani@nikula.org>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E075431FBD
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:35 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled
\r
13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
14 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
15 with ESMTP id ho9bmCHAYeYw for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:30 -0800 (PST)
\r
17 Received: from mail-ee0-f42.google.com (mail-ee0-f42.google.com
\r
18 [74.125.83.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client
\r
19 certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id
\r
20 E3C67431FBC for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:29 -0800
\r
22 Received: by mail-ee0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e49so1392670eek.29
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:27 -0800 (PST)
\r
24 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
\r
25 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
\r
26 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references
\r
27 :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;
\r
28 bh=xe5ZjDv+sUFubCOxoNmTsD0FNnEqtIMCDal5rGtuMSA=;
\r
29 b=YkuzUum/coVuAl2RwESl2aKj4DVnpP7WONMqXBlDK/7qKB8fNlr+zmWggBRgqfp7gX
\r
30 rXWCZsF6wOUIrFIb0EMxvJedGn7d5QKfaDS8ek+jux2OI4mryLSpxxLCecCz9SUj95fo
\r
31 fpKLwdO/j1RKvTEbxO+L7p72rLw0jykdg/U6s89Xfw3xaa/QMbg/vmyT87bNImCeL+rr
\r
32 ScWK6mPEvwZE8U5VzfPp5qapPb35X3EgqwllHCXsj+cIwyqVZl9+XXDq9D/VubdIwtNR
\r
33 7AWactvNdrGFvENLqXaOYMU1+U7L1Hbdw0SnBKprzg1Dr8bPxzqDyCz5L6Vr/PjhB+sQ
\r
36 ALoCoQnr9n45eiNMebLVNrSgNDu0mQtxiTeIwKJAObaCfOt1k3Vf0yAZZKSHN4rXYlSkD69Odr2p
\r
37 X-Received: by 10.14.0.201 with SMTP id 49mr17098412eeb.38.1390647987476;
\r
38 Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:27 -0800 (PST)
\r
39 Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw2-58c36f-91.dhcp.inet.fi.
\r
41 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 46sm14726160ees.4.2014.01.25.03.06.26
\r
42 for <multiple recipients>
\r
43 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
\r
44 Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:26 -0800 (PST)
\r
45 From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
\r
46 To: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>,
\r
47 Austin Clements <aclements@csail.mit.edu>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
48 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] lib: make folder: prefix literal
\r
49 In-Reply-To: <m2zjmks5hq.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
\r
50 References: <cover.1389304779.git.jani@nikula.org>
\r
51 <87y525m649.fsf@awakening.csail.mit.edu>
\r
52 <87r47wfltb.fsf@nikula.org> <m2zjmks5hq.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
\r
53 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17+44~ge3b4cd9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1
\r
54 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
55 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 13:06:25 +0200
\r
56 Message-ID: <87ob30fhhq.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
58 Content-Type: text/plain
\r
59 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
60 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
62 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
63 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
64 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
65 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
66 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
67 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
68 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
69 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
70 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
71 X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:06:35 -0000
\r
73 On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote:
\r
74 > On Sat, Jan 25 2014, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
\r
75 >> Perhaps we need to have two prefixes, one of which is the literal
\r
76 >> filesystem folder and another which hides the implementation details,
\r
77 >> like I mentioned in my mail to Peter [1]. But consider this: my proposed
\r
78 >> implementation does cover *all* use cases.
\r
80 > I challenge that with my use case: my mails are arranged as follows:
\r
84 > For me the current folder: works as I don't have collisions.
\r
86 Fair enough, your use case would be *very inconvenient* with the
\r
87 proposed changes to the folder: prefix, *regardless* of whether the leaf
\r
88 cur/new is indexed and required or not.
\r
90 (Very inconvenient, or practically impossible, as you'd have to include
\r
91 all those 01..ff directories in your searches.)
\r
93 > For me a folder: search which would just work as a prefix i.e. match
\r
94 > anything under given directory hierarchy would work best.
\r
96 Indeed. Your use case is not an argument in whether cur/new should be
\r
99 That "recursive folder prefix" suggestion is, I think, incompatible with
\r
100 the requirements for the literal folder: prefix we've been considering.
\r