Re: thread merge/split proposal

diff --git a/fe/38df325d7ce1e604aa64bc94cb1e5a433bf9ff b/fe/38df325d7ce1e604aa64bc94cb1e5a433bf9ff
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..52fe7ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/fe/38df325d7ce1e604aa64bc94cb1e5a433bf9ff
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+Return-Path: <david@tethera.net>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC386DE012F\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:57:07 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -0.017\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[AWL=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01]\r
+ autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id UBqTkRowV1aT for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:56:59 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197])\r
+ by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A653F6DE0127\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:56:59 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84)\r
+ (envelope-from <david@tethera.net>)\r
+ id 1apmdg-0003LR-28; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:57:08 -0400\r
+Received: (nullmailer pid 26271 invoked by uid 1000);\r
+ Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:56:57 -0000\r
+From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>\r
+To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>,\r
+ Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+Subject: Re: thread merge/split proposal\r
+In-Reply-To: <87egabu5ta.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>\r
+References: <87mvp9uwi4.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>\r
+ <87k2kdutao.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <878u0l8uyv.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+ <87egabu5ta.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+99~gd93d377 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:56:57 -0300\r
+Message-ID: <8737qr7ig6.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:57:07 -0000\r
+\r
+Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> writes:\r
+\r
+> I'm not sure what you mean by "signed" here (cryptographically signed?\r
+> a term named "signed"?  the idea that the term could be either positive\r
+> or negative?), but i think your proposal is that we could have a\r
+> "reference" term with a value of "+foo@example.com" or\r
+> "-foo@example.com", instead of having a "join" term with value\r
+> "foo@example.com" and a "split" term with value "foo@example.com"\r
+\r
+I was thinking mostly in terms of the UI. I think\r
+\r
+%  notmuch reference +id1 -id2 $QUERY\r
+        \r
+goes well with the tag interface.\r
+\r
+> I'm not sure i see much of a difference between\r
+>\r
+>  a) introduce two new term types, "join" and "split", with unsigned\r
+>     values\r
+> and\r
+>\r
+>  b) introduce one new term type, "reference" with signed values\r
+\r
+Yeah, it's an implimentation detail, not clear to me that it matters.\r
+\r
+> both (a) and (b) complicate syncing solutions, but my original proposal\r
+> of:\r
+>\r
+>  c) just introduce a new term type "join" with unsigned value\r
+\r
+I just meant it isn't representable as folders, like tags are (not well,\r
+but *shrug*).\r
+\r
+> is easy to sync, i think; i was going for the low-hanging fruit, and\r
+> trying to not let it get caught up on the more-fully-featured\r
+> arbitrary-split use case, though i understand the appeal of the generic\r
+> approach.\r
+\r
+I'm a bit worried about UI proliferation with notmuch-join,\r
+notmuch-unjoin now and maybe notmuch-split, notmuch-unsplit later. I'd\r
+be fine with a more generic command with parts perhaps unimplimented.\r
+ \r
+> So adding an explicit "join" document term (and figuring out how to\r
+> represent it in "notmuch dump" and "notmuch restore") would be a strict\r
+> improvement over the current situation, right?\r
+\r
+Making things generic in the right way will be less work in the long\r
+run, I think.  For example, if we had thought about more general terms\r
+attached to a message in the last revision of dump/restore, we'd be done\r
+now. \r