To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us>
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: nmbug in the Debian packages?
In-Reply-To: <87h9h8vlrj.fsf@zancas.localnet>
References: <cun37t5r91p.fsf@disaster-area.hh.sledj.net>
 <87twlj8mix.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> <20160208193804.GE4265@odin.tremily.us>
 <87lh6o79vb.fsf@zancas.localnet> <20160213220250.GB4265@odin.tremily.us>
 <87h9h8vlrj.fsf@zancas.localnet>
From: David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:55:13 +0000
Message-ID: <m2bn7f1u9a.fsf@dme.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list

On Tue, Feb 16 2016, David Bremner wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> writes:
>
>>
>> I'd floated notmuch-dtag earlier [1].  Does that sound right?  Or do
>> folks prefer another name?
>>
>
> I had a thought about this. The password manager "pass" uses
>
>    pass git {push|pull}
>
> for git related operations. Perhaps that would make sense for us as
> well?

My initial reaction is that there might be many other potential
interpretations of what "notmuch-git" functionality should look like (as
distinct from current nmbug functionality).

As you mention below, there's quite a lot of implementation in nmbug
that is not simply "put some stuff in a git repository".

> So initially "notmuch-git".  I'm of course open to better ideas, but
> especially since you pushed a bit to make the interface follow git
> more closely, perhaps that's a more informative name than "dtag".  It
> also leaves open the possibility of stashing other metadata than tags,
> should something like [1] come to pass.
>
> On the other hand, it's true that what we're doing is less transparent
> than what pass does, which is really just pass the arguments straight
> through to git.
>
> [1] id:1453561198-2893-2-git-send-email-david@tethera.net
> _______________________________________________
> notmuch mailing list
> notmuch@notmuchmail.org
> https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch