From: Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>,
	Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove message archiving from show-advance-and-archive
In-Reply-To: <87y6eogkge.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
References: <87zkz4xnf4.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<874ohctf2h.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net>
	<87sk4wxm7j.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<87wru8rze2.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net>
	<87hblcxksa.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<87y6eogkge.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.3.1-59-g0b3b2bd (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1
	(i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:11:15 -0400
Message-ID: <871vcgxbqk.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:54:57 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:55:49 -0400, Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructu=
re.net> wrote:
> > I actually submitted this patch because there was noise on #notmuch
> > about people (including from cworth) not liking the default behavior
> > where the "inbox" tag is removed by the advance function.
>=20
> For the record, I wrote the current behavior for my own use, so I've
> been pretty happy with it.

I'm still not understanding the usage pattern here.  Do you really want
to archive all threads after you've read them?  If so, what's the
difference between the "unread" and "inbox" tags in your work flow?

dme's response was "if I don't want the message archived, then I hit 'q'
instead of ' '".  But it seems to make more sense to me to say "if I
want the message archived, I just hit 'a'".

> I suppose one option here would be a customizable variable that controls
> what happens when trying to advance "past" the last message, (do
> nothing, advance to next thread, archive current thread and advance to
> next thread)?

We could, but I think it adds a lot of unnecessary complication.  I
wonder if there's not a better way to handle the flow that you guys are
advocating, rather than using notmuch-show-advance-and-archive.

But I have a stop-gap solution.  What if we provide both
notmuch-show-advance and notmuch-show-advance-and-archive, with the
default being notmuch-show-advance?  That way, if folks want to use the
old behavior, they can just set

(define-key notmuch-show-mode-map " " 'notmuch-show-advance-and-archive)

in their emacs config file.  If people agree on that solution, then I
can submit a revamped patch.

jamie.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJMD+dTAAoJEO00zqvie6q8M8sP/iVCFkl4VQ0eJdL4NuwvJ5Di
A1iJqo4qxJhvYHxZeyf5jgNnWks0gN9tOtIE3YLVVyRIoSE8HOSE42lqm7Vz6va0
aAsdJm2f7vrXqvExLeX/ggeh5025xqA6wpQImCH1vdDrpYMct7+9GqzvCUmL+2lY
IwfeqWEXuYpvPQMXwXOdAVb13eiyrXocF5NwWPA/c3/6WlQiM5qYxUBdsteV1gX1
1jkLxn2QFr9Zu7bwXy/u5UskVYaB7xKouCWC632PUgbwJydV7Rt4Cpq8/F+aEfjF
0NfBEPEZKUGrl050qJmMoQADghzZhlFcLp24IWO43WpxQMuf4S+QQo6uAEzEOtdF
igy2WfxIbz0X8bc3yoK0fkJ7kPBzTuBsUwGs9odKcafNgSDCKF52TuodkeBl7m9x
nxNdOQo7T19MN0ShfN2IMDzixKB9/E2XJ2gb1pck820Zd1So/yo7mgyPp5jwyy2v
RZ7hDbDX5/0tdxIw9eIBhADq8yaNCLbaJBT2EVhUrHyGuYxXMl/bpJgMN8nrokkK
mOqeE7KhPtnSiEDPPLkr1OM0qnxsV9J3xxTkzvRLsyBXRU1fcy63UxUxSUx9T3G8
aZNHHfES+xa36Wgpu9S1mhK8jpyNyno/uVVXhu8upGPtJ7R/7M8RYOOXq9IuSt0Q
mhL72dHpKH8jtVKnS855
=1KMO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--