From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Move --no-exclude to --exclude=(true|false|flag)
In-Reply-To: <1331836925-31437-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>
References: <1331836925-31437-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+306~g05d342c (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:02:30 -0700
Message-ID: <87k42jepe1.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 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:42:00 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com=
> wrote:
> This series changes the --no-exclude options to count, search and show
> to --exclude=3D(true|false|flag). It also changes the default to true
> rather than flag for speed and for uncluttered command line output.
>=20
> This series replaces the series
> id:"1330779918-28024-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com". Jani
> suggested the --exclude=3D rather than --with-excluded approach as being
> both clearer and easier to extend.
>=20
> It is intend to apply on top of the bugfix series
> id:"1331728014-32698-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com".

And indeed it does.  I've tested and reviewed and it looks and works
great.

> There should be no significant logic change (i.e. the logic in the lib
> is unchanged) but the defaults for the command lines are different.

I fully support this change.  The new logic makes sense to me and is a
good compromise between usability and flexibility.

> The general idea is that when complete threads are requested then we
> always return complete threads including any messages matching the
> exclude tags (where appropriate these are flagged excluded), but we
> may not return threads that only match in excluded messages.
>=20
> The rationale is that it is awkward to deal with a thread with
> "missing" messages.

Agreed.  I should note that for all uses of excludes that I can think of
one would not expect to be excluding messages from threads that one
would otherwise be keeping.  So I certainly have no problem not
excluding=20

Thanks again for working on this, Mark.  Your efforts are much
appreciated.  This is nice new functionality.

jamie.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=0hCW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--