DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
	:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	b=EUcva0Yoy1+dSdSFhabgyYrIvUzejr4DxBbDhd22MtV1N54gaCedWhJP1cfe3Vsn9a
	Yh3kWQX1eAhudFsgcVOTOrHpBCuscx9AjazRxPP48IMx0pu5Ru7EPeBhAIUZLa7JyBRx
	FgaZAtXQa7ijpEgwHfG8yihrBLXj3txWEw9Xo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: amdragon@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <871v4a7zt6.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org>
References: <87tyh9wzs2.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<87oc7fe590.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org>
	<87aaiy3u65.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<871v4a7zt6.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 02:29:46 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTin7VgCbA9L_Dv5WKJzq=xDZ9pBwjAAUB6Y6LpW9@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Folder-based searching
From: Austin Clements <amdragon@mit.edu>
To: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630eb234334db049a2dfb59
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

--00163630eb234334db049a2dfb59
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

The folder search implementation in the custom query parser is always rooted
(both because that happened to be much easier to do in that design, and
because I agree with you that rooted searches seem preferable most of the
time).  What arguments do people have for or against rooted folder searches?

On a similar note, another difference is that cworth's folder search is
recursive (which, I suppose, follows from being non-rooted).  That is, a
search for "folder:foo" will find any message in any folder under foo.  The
folder search I posted is non-recursive.  Thus, "folder:foo" specifically
searches the foo maildir (that is, any mail under foo, foo/new, or foo/cur).
 I consider different folders to be, well, different, regardless of nesting,
but what are other people's thoughts?

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> wrote:
>
> I'd be tempted to consider making folder: searches rooted by default.  I
> wonder how often people really want "all folders named misc"?

--00163630eb234334db049a2dfb59
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The folder search implementation in the custom query parser is always roote=
d (both because that happened to be much easier to do in that design, and b=
ecause I agree with you that rooted searches seem preferable most of the ti=
me). =A0What arguments do people have for or against rooted folder searches=
?<div>
<br></div><div>On a similar note, another difference is that cworth&#39;s f=
older search is recursive (which, I suppose, follows from being non-rooted)=
. =A0That is, a search for &quot;folder:foo&quot; will find any message in =
any folder under foo. =A0The folder search I posted is non-recursive. =A0Th=
us, &quot;folder:foo&quot; specifically searches the foo maildir (that is, =
any mail under foo, foo/new, or foo/cur). =A0I consider different folders t=
o be, well, different, regardless of nesting, but what are other people&#39=
;s thoughts?<br>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Rob Brownin=
g <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rlb@defaultvalue.org">rlb@default=
value.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">I&#39;d be tempted to consider making folder: searches ro=
oted by default. =A0I</div>
wonder how often people really want &quot;all folders named misc&quot;?</bl=
ockquote></div></div>

--00163630eb234334db049a2dfb59--