From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org>, Xavier Maillard <xma@gnu.org>,
	Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] config: only set search.exclude_tags to "deleted;
 spam;	" during setup
In-Reply-To: <87ipk3au08.fsf@praet.org>
References: <1326586654-16840-3-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>
	<1327000744-25463-1-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org>
	<1327000744-25463-4-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org>
	<m2r4yr2xmy.fsf@kcals.intra.maillard.im>
	<874nvnqrgq.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87ipk3au08.fsf@praet.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+102~g958863a (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:34:00 -0800
Message-ID: <87y5sz0ypj.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Cc: Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

--=-=-=

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:05:27 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org> wrote:
> You definitely have a point, but then again, who are we to assume that
> the terms "deleted" and "spam" have the *exact* same meaning for
> everyone?  (also see id:"8739bbo0br.fsf@praet.org")

Hrm.  I'm not sure I buy this.  Words already have meanings.  If we're
going to start down a rabbit hole where we have to assume that users are
making up crazy alternate meanings for words, we're going to run into a
lot of problems.

Notmuch, or at least the emacs interface, already assumes a specific
meaning for certain terms, like most notably "inbox".  Given that we're
dealing with english here, I think we have to assume common usage
meanings for any of the words we're using to describe anything.

This argument breaks a little in regards to "delete" since we're not
actually deleting anything in the sense of rm'ing it form the
filesystem, so we're already changing the meaning a bit.  But see below.

> IMHO, this is one of those options that should remain disabled until
> *explicitly* set by the user.

Ok, but then we're back to the incredibly prolonged discussion we've
been having about adding "delete" keys.  If we disable this by default,
but add "delete" keys, the user might be in for a different surprise if
"deleted" messages keep showing up in searches.

Basically we have two options as I see it:

- add keys bindings to add "deleted" tags, and then *also* exclude
  "tag:deleted" by default.

- don't exclude anything by default, but then don't add any special keys
  to handle "deleted" tags.

There seemed to be a consensus forming that we in fact did want to add
the "deleted" key bindings.  If we do that, then I think we should
generate the config file to exclude "deleted" tags by default.

jamie.

PS: when I say "exclude tags by default" I actually mean that the
setting should be added to the config file upon (re)generation.  Nothing
should be excluded if nothing is set in the config file.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=pyV4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--