Return-Path: <jani@nikula.org>
X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E075431FBD
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.7
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled
Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id ho9bmCHAYeYw for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
	Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-f42.google.com (mail-ee0-f42.google.com
 [74.125.83.42])	(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))	(No client
 certificate requested)	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id
 E3C67431FBC	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:29 -0800
 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e49so1392670eek.29
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references
	:user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;
	bh=xe5ZjDv+sUFubCOxoNmTsD0FNnEqtIMCDal5rGtuMSA=;
	b=YkuzUum/coVuAl2RwESl2aKj4DVnpP7WONMqXBlDK/7qKB8fNlr+zmWggBRgqfp7gX
	rXWCZsF6wOUIrFIb0EMxvJedGn7d5QKfaDS8ek+jux2OI4mryLSpxxLCecCz9SUj95fo
	fpKLwdO/j1RKvTEbxO+L7p72rLw0jykdg/U6s89Xfw3xaa/QMbg/vmyT87bNImCeL+rr
	ScWK6mPEvwZE8U5VzfPp5qapPb35X3EgqwllHCXsj+cIwyqVZl9+XXDq9D/VubdIwtNR
	7AWactvNdrGFvENLqXaOYMU1+U7L1Hbdw0SnBKprzg1Dr8bPxzqDyCz5L6Vr/PjhB+sQ
	PWXg==
X-Gm-Message-State:
 ALoCoQnr9n45eiNMebLVNrSgNDu0mQtxiTeIwKJAObaCfOt1k3Vf0yAZZKSHN4rXYlSkD69Odr2p
X-Received: by 10.14.0.201 with SMTP id 49mr17098412eeb.38.1390647987476;
	Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw2-58c36f-91.dhcp.inet.fi.
	[88.195.111.91])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 46sm14726160ees.4.2014.01.25.03.06.26
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:06:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
To: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>,
 Austin Clements <aclements@csail.mit.edu>,	notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] lib: make folder: prefix literal
In-Reply-To: <m2zjmks5hq.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
References: <cover.1389304779.git.jani@nikula.org>
	<87y525m649.fsf@awakening.csail.mit.edu>
	<87r47wfltb.fsf@nikula.org> <m2zjmks5hq.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17+44~ge3b4cd9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 13:06:25 +0200
Message-ID: <87ob30fhhq.fsf@nikula.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:06:35 -0000

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25 2014, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
>> Perhaps we need to have two prefixes, one of which is the literal
>> filesystem folder and another which hides the implementation details,
>> like I mentioned in my mail to Peter [1]. But consider this: my proposed
>> implementation does cover *all* use cases.
>
> I challenge that with my use case: my mails are arranged as follows: 

[snip]

> For me the current folder: works as I don't have collisions.

Fair enough, your use case would be *very inconvenient* with the
proposed changes to the folder: prefix, *regardless* of whether the leaf
cur/new is indexed and required or not.

(Very inconvenient, or practically impossible, as you'd have to include
all those 01..ff directories in your searches.)

> For me a folder: search which would just work as a prefix i.e. match
> anything under given directory hierarchy would work best.

Indeed. Your use case is not an argument in whether cur/new should be
included or not.

That "recursive folder prefix" suggestion is, I think, incompatible with
the requirements for the literal folder: prefix we've been considering.


BR,
Jani.