From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
To: Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org>,
	Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,
	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: <87d3aac0bl.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> <8739b6opce.fsf@nikula.org>
	<87d3aac0bl.fsf@praet.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+187~g43d4f26 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1
	(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:31:23 +0000
Message-ID: <87wr8in7l0.fsf@nikula.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:03:42 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:22:25 +0000, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:05:27 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org> wro=
te:
> > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:53:41 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@f=
inestructure.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:14:13 +0100, Xavier Maillard <xavier@maillar=
d.im> wrote:
> > > > >=20
> > > > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:19:03 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.or=
g> wrote:
> > > > > > If the 'search.exclude_tags' option is missing from the config =
file,
> > > > > > its value is automatically set to "deleted;spam;".  Taking PoLS=
/DWIM
> > > > > > into account, this should probably only happen during setup.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > This patch is actually Austin Clements' work:
> > > > > >   id:"20120117203211.GQ16740@mit.edu"
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I do not think this is a sane default. As I told it in another po=
st. I
> > > > > do not expect notmuch to skew my search queries not that I specif=
ically
> > > > > asked.
> > > >=20
> > > > Hi, Xavier.  Do you currently mark things as "deleted" or "spam"?  =
If
> > > > not, this would have no affect on your search results.  If you do, =
do
> > > > you currently expect those messages to show up in searches?  If so,=
 why
> > > > did you mark them as "deleted" or "spam" to begin with?
> > > >=20
> > > > I agree with your point in principle (ie. I don't generally want my
> > > > searches tampered with behind the scenes) but the issue here is abo=
ut
> > > > messages that have been explicitly tagged as a form of "trash".  Tr=
ash
> > > > is by it's nature something you're trying to get rid of.  If you wa=
nted
> > > > to find something in the future, why would you put it in the trash =
in
> > > > the first place?
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > 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")
> >=20
> > "deleted" used to be a tag recognized by notmuch, and it used to sync to
> > the T (trashed) maildir flag. Even if notmuch won't delete any of your
> > mails now, I don't think you should use "deleted" on messages you want
> > to see again. Please let's not split hairs about this.
> >=20
>=20
> Agreed, but it might be nice to make a clear distinction between
> concepts and the actual tags mapped to them.  I'm not suggestion we
> redefine the term "deleted", but from an internationalization
> standpoint, we shouldn't prevent users from mapping e.g. "verwijderd",
> "supprim=C3=A9", "gel=C3=B6scht", ... to the concept "deleted".
>=20
> > There really should be a definitive list of tags that are special to
> > lib/cli/emacs (like "inbox", "unread", "deleted", ...), or are
> > recommended for specific purposes (like "new" as an intermediate tag
> > before more sophisticated tagging), to avoid prolonged discussions like
> > this.
> >=20
>=20
> A list of recommended tags would definitely be nice, as long as they
> remain recommendations (as opposed to obligations), especially since
> there's really no reason to designate certain tags as being "special".

Whether there's reason or not, certain tags are special, for a fact, and
they are not just recommendations. Perhaps one day someone will
contribute patches to make them configurable, and separate the concepts
from the actual tags, but in the mean time it will be easier to just
document them for what they are.

BR,
Jani.