--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3EA429E47\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:17 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -0.799\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,\r
+ FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id W+3fMUlnMYBH for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:13 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com (mail-la0-f51.google.com\r
+ [209.85.215.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))\r
+ (No client certificate requested)\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FC03429E38\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:13 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ep20so211234lab.24\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 13:44:09 -0800 (PST)\r
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;\r
+ h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to\r
+ :cc:content-type;\r
+ bh=88kGWiHKZouXnMxC84BVLbePd4GxQltuwixh1X3HCvE=;\r
+ b=Bq94mWX3wRJklcdY1hLP9sNQIAgiEE//kO42/Ij004uIBqTfLcNXyBwxNN8fCaE4G6\r
+ KLo9rElAEwOJE/K9uwsEvqPkJLcIlq7FjInq4R09/h36xVs3cb5rYu7cuuthERw0GsCZ\r
+ 9pVJAXSkK8+GSHM0VCZ8E7wk2Npd0V0lzsGdZbgwqNDC1bUwUs0LgW0zp1qr0+uLTWkG\r
+ U0JyfQl6kv/m7XSf4gUNIY80Xy2Tw+AGJd+3vO5fjX/8+tpF912xX4sC4N7dox2TAkCB\r
+ cQmCxBxQ90ZzQD83RKFK7Hy8O+V6JT4gUJc+TDNq0RdgQNV8tCgiQBZtdiT6pkHBHOth\r
+ UL/w==\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+X-Received: by 10.112.144.197 with SMTP id so5mr5021318lbb.22.1383515049317;\r
+ Sun, 03 Nov 2013 13:44:09 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: by 10.114.201.69 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:09 -0800 (PST)\r
+In-Reply-To: <87k3gprzo0.fsf@jhu.edu>\r
+References: <5274f93e254b5_6de7f51e7849@nysa.notmuch>\r
+ <87zjpmoqtz.fsf@nikula.org> <87k3gprzo0.fsf@jhu.edu>\r
+Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:44:09 -0600\r
+Message-ID:\r
+ <CAMP44s31aT9acTW8xyV5OQgA+i-mO2gLk9AaAuOKPhXNCcKf3g@mail.gmail.com>\r
+Subject: Re: Getting the right root mail of the thread\r
+From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>\r
+To: Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu>\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\r
+Cc: "notmuch@notmuchmail.org" <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 21:44:17 -0000\r
+\r
+On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu> wrote:\r
+> Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> writes:\r
+>> I think it's actually worse than what your example demonstrates. It's\r
+>> the subject of the newest/oldest *matching* message that gets used. In\r
+>> your example, the first/last messages in the thread apparently match\r
+>> your query.\r
+>\r
+> The behavior is there because subjects frequently change in long\r
+> threads, and this allows the subject to refer to the most recent unread\r
+> message (if we're sorting in the default order). The\r
+> reason I requested and wrote in this behavior five years ago or so (my\r
+> only c contribution ever) was that numerous business associates would\r
+> keep email lists by replying and changing the subject. This is *very*\r
+> common outside of programming circles. Even in programming circles,\r
+> subjects frequently change on mailing list (with a "[was: ...]"\r
+> appended).\r
+\r
+Yes but how important is it to keep track of that?\r
+\r
+I say it is much more important to track threads like this properly:\r
+\r
+ foobar patch 0 (usually a summary/overview)\r
+ +-foobar patch 1\r
+ | +-comment on patch 1\r
+ +-foobar patch 2\r
+ +-foobar patch 3\r
+ | +-comment on patch 3\r
+ +-foobar patch 4\r
+ +-foobar patch 5\r
+\r
+But fine, let's concentrate on the common user scenario (which is not\r
+common for notmuch users at all). We can have a thread like this:\r
+\r
+ No work on Friday\r
+ + Shall we go for some beers? (was: No work on Friday)\r
+ + What about project X? (was: No work on Friday)\r
+\r
+So which is the correct summary of the thread? The fact of the matter\r
+is that we are talking about three threads now.\r
+\r
+Gmail does this correctly. Each time the subject is changed, it's\r
+considered a new thread.\r
+\r
+> The current behavior can be annoying, but the old behavior could make\r
+> the MUA quite unusable in a number of circumstances. (And yes, an MUA\r
+> that fails on reading mail from senders with bad emailing practices is\r
+> unusable for me.)\r
+\r
+This is rhetorical warfare. It's wouldn't be "failing on reading mail".\r
+\r
+If displaying the original subject is failing, then we might be\r
+failing when searching with older first. Why would the order of the\r
+search affect the thread summary?\r
+\r
+> Maybe there should be a "show original subject" toggle? That wouldn't be\r
+> too hard, though it would require another call to the library and\r
+> regenerating the search results.\r
+\r
+Yes. I say it should be a property of the query. I don't see why\r
+anybody would want it any other way, but it wouldn't hurt to make it\r
+an option.\r
+\r
+-- \r
+Felipe Contreras\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff