Return-Path: 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 71D65431FD0 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 08:53:12 -0700 (PDT) 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 DaVnkpwRgjFk for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 08:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f53.google.com (mail-ew0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A6CD431FB6 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 08:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so213420ewy.26 for ; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:53:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.145.15 with SMTP id b15mr3386108bkv.372.1315410785541; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: awg@xvx.ca Received: by 10.204.17.9 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 08:53:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [68.148.112.98] In-Reply-To: References: <1315322623575-3313863.post@n3.nabble.com> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 09:53:05 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: kdBV1LIuW5HfAKGedV_Xw-SwNIw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] sort saved searches, again From: Adam Wolfe Gordon To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:53:12 -0000 (Sorry if anyone gets this twice; I sent it to the list initially from the wrong email address.) On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 02:01, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:23:43 -0700 (PDT), Adam Wolfe Gordon wrote: >> I think having an option to sort the saved searches is a fine idea. >> The Emacs Way would probably be to have an option for the sort order >> that takes the name of a function, which is called to sort the >> searches. My first thought is that this isn't very user-friendly. >> But, thinking about it a bit more, if the default causes the searches >> to be sorted alphabetically, and setting the value to nil causes them >> not to be sorted, then it's user-friendly for the two most common >> cases, and still 100% customizable for those who want different sort >> orders. > > Please find this implemented in patch 1. I've tried the patches, and they work properly for me. I think this looks good; hopefully others agree. > I hardly use tags at all. I have dozens of saved searches instead. Thus > I want the saved searches to be easy to find, and I'd rather have the > computer sort them for me. I do admit to renaming the most important > ones to start with capital letters so they pop up first even when > sorted. > > Since it seems that people generally prefer to keep the most important > saved searches first in the list, I've included patch 2 to make new > saved searches be added to the end of the list rather than inserted in > the beginning. Indeed, I expect there are many different notmuch workflows. I think these patches keep notmuch general enough to support any workflow, while making the common ones very easy to use. -- Adam Wolfe Gordon