Re: The archive operation should only archive open messages

diff --git a/d1/f31c33b9e911e9cb68de8947511a7409d4644f b/d1/f31c33b9e911e9cb68de8947511a7409d4644f
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..5b1e8c1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/d1/f31c33b9e911e9cb68de8947511a7409d4644f
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+Return-Path: <cworth@cworth.org>\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 F34EC4196F0\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:36:47 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -2.89\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01]\r
+       autolearn=ham\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 yg-V3HFc-3Ha; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from yoom.home.cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05BF431FC1;\r
+       Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by yoom.home.cworth.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)\r
+       id 7692B568DE4; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT)\r
+From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>\r
+To: Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: The archive operation should only archive open messages\r
+In-Reply-To: <87ljcowh21.fsf@jhu.edu>\r
+References: <87633sfnyq.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87ljcowh21.fsf@jhu.edu>\r
+Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:36:46 -0700\r
+Message-ID: <87pr1y2ir5.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
+       micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"\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: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:36:48 -0000\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+\r
+On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:18:30 -0400, Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu> wrote:\r
+> Which is all just to say that I think that archiving is just a special\r
+> case of tagging/untagging, and that the issues raised here should be\r
+> considered across the larger general case.\r
+\r
+I do agree that archiving is just a special-case of\r
+tagging/untagging. And fortunately, I think the implementation matches\r
+that, so consistency will be natural here.\r
+\r
+You're also making the claim that the tagging behavior should be\r
+consistent between the search-results and thread-content views and that\r
+makes a lot of sense.\r
+\r
+Earlier in your message, you wrote:\r
+\r
+> However, when I have a long thread, and only one message in the inbox,\r
+> tagging the thread, of course, tags all the messages in it "to-reply."\r
+> Now, the way to do it might be to just change my habits, and only tag\r
+> while in show-mode, as opposed to search-mode. But this does seem to be\r
+> in conflict with the way I intuitively want to handle my mail, and I\r
+> imagine I'm not the only one.\r
+\r
+It's funny, because for a while we did have the tag operation in the\r
+search view affecting only the messages that actually matched the\r
+search. The problem we ran into was that if you archived a message from\r
+the search view and then wanted to undo that, the "+ inbox" operation\r
+would not work, (since archiving the messages made them no longer match\r
+the current search).\r
+\r
+We "fixed" that by making the tag operations affect all messages in the\r
+thread.\r
+\r
+It occurs to me that the real bug here is that the tag operation is\r
+re-executing the search, rather than simply acting on the set of\r
+messages being displayed. And that's a bug we've recently discussed and\r
+want to fix.\r
+\r
+Once we fix that, I think we can go back to having tag operations only\r
+affect matched messages in the search view, and I agree that this will\r
+be extremely convenient.\r
+\r
+-Carl\r
+\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
+\r
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)\r
+\r
+iD8DBQFLydWO6JDdNq8qSWgRAjgxAJ0WjV0OSJ7ez4H2KEblgdEZ9bJTsQCgj/Wq\r
++ZV0J88jr0GyOP2PR+epREE=\r
+=ssCz\r
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+--=-=-=--\r