--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <jani@nikula.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 53F93431FAF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 15:34:44 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -0.7\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[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 zUAhr+1LdtU1 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Mon, 5 May 2014 15:34:34 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail-ee0-f41.google.com (mail-ee0-f41.google.com\r
+ [74.125.83.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client\r
+ certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id\r
+ 4D3A5431FAE for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 15:34:34 -0700\r
+ (PDT)\r
+Received: by mail-ee0-f41.google.com with SMTP id t10so2245533eei.28\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 05 May 2014 15:34:33 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;\r
+ d=1e100.net; s=20130820;\r
+ h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references\r
+ :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;\r
+ bh=4jOSD4OopB7Em/lSXQHTIyjp+dE4IqwHRQaE+Hl8M9Y=;\r
+ b=ei8xSWpyrLEzYjRhM6+im94QTkHsjriMcH0XdwQYqJeIGYWRXUEnaoQCIuY1yyYI8C\r
+ kLSm9Sbe22EWV2WfXLLgcZlTMkmMgJB/zGyEctbolq21Luthl0/yl2lgNguuGjWJ2fsL\r
+ DyArTcXy6I2/5wdBB646jjbDu2apeLG9NZlUAShkIpdLQ47MnTiufzCcP1Z9pZwhmExE\r
+ PzlnYqXkl4ZYPWOkXyCbkFVZAtSIJC6fd2vcc9o6pHQGgb92mi2eCO67ibnQ3p+jxO13\r
+ sjZ7IQYgyRMfSFsAf9+Td2NkpDR9F6munD7EUvpRhIralKLjrq4F/RVDL6fIm3s8C0m1\r
+ dO9g==\r
+X-Gm-Message-State:\r
+ ALoCoQk0lyuvHXM8agX/1H/waJN20uG4qPgRIFPLwDc29p7F2wnLyGmE5KECBMKF/8dJvb6eK85y\r
+X-Received: by 10.15.50.136 with SMTP id l8mr5732323eew.73.1399329273064;\r
+ Mon, 05 May 2014 15:34:33 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw2-58c36f-91.dhcp.inet.fi.\r
+ [88.195.111.91])\r
+ by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 45sm33177942eeh.9.2014.05.05.15.34.31\r
+ for <multiple recipients>\r
+ (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);\r
+ Mon, 05 May 2014 15:34:32 -0700 (PDT)\r
+From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>\r
+To: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, David Mazieres expires 2014-08-01 PDT\r
+ <mazieres-m3ssd5tf29djdm7jf9qfi4atf2@temporary-address.scs.stanford.edu>,\r
+ Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+Subject: Re: folder and path completely broken in HEAD?\r
+In-Reply-To: <87mwewkjzu.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>\r
+References: <87oazfo3w2.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <87zjiz8hft.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+ <87iopmonzn.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <87tx96ycja.fsf@nikula.org>\r
+ <8738gqnx6k.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>\r
+ <87mwewkjzu.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18~rc0+2~gbc64cdc (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 01:34:30 +0300\r
+Message-ID: <87bnvb4zyh.fsf@nikula.org>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\r
+Cc: 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: Mon, 05 May 2014 22:34:44 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+Hi Carl -\r
+\r
+On Tue, 06 May 2014, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:\r
+> dm-list-email-notmuch@scs.stanford.edu writes:\r
+>> However, currently it seems strange that there are *two* different\r
+>> search terms (folder and path), and that neither one lets you search for\r
+>> a portion of your folder name.\r
+>\r
+> For what it's worth, I totally agree. I'm guilty as far as sitting out\r
+> of the detailed design discussions, (I don't use any sort of\r
+> folder-based searching, so I don't care too much). I was aware of the\r
+> problems of the original "folder:" code I wrote, and I was happy to hear\r
+> that people were addressing those problems.\r
+>\r
+> But it's terribly strange to me that notmuch now has two different\r
+> search terms that overlap so much in functionality. I know that I will\r
+> never trust myself to be able to distinguish/describe the folder:\r
+> vs. path: semantics without consulting the documentation. And that's\r
+> discouraging.\r
+\r
+The discussions about this were lengthy and tedious, and I was glad we\r
+eventually reached some consensus about what we wanted. It's always\r
+disappointing to find out one hasn't found the solution to satisfy\r
+everyone, but in the end I think I'm happier we were able to reach a\r
+decision, do something about the real issues people were facing with\r
+folder: and move on, rather than just grind to a halt. I think we were\r
+pretty close to everyone just dropping the ball and letting the folder:\r
+prefix be, warts and all.\r
+\r
+The idea of path: is that it's the exact filesystem directory, relative\r
+from the maildir root, with an rsync like ** syntax for recursive\r
+matching. Turns out people want folder: to hide maildir implementation\r
+details like cur and new. These are not compatible, or you need to add a\r
+syntax that's not easy or discoverable.\r
+\r
+path: is now pretty much complete, and allows one to do robust scripting\r
+that won't break in surprising ways. folder: is something we can still\r
+add new functionality into, for example fancier interpretations of\r
+maildir++, or anchoring if we ever get the custom query parser.\r
+\r
+> I think the original "folder:" shortcomings could have been addressed\r
+> without adding two terms, and also without losing some functionality,\r
+> (as shown in David's use case).\r
+>\r
+> I would have liked to have seen some explicit syntax for anchoring the\r
+> beginning and end of the directory name, (which could have then been\r
+> re-used for anchoring subject: or even some future header: prefix).\r
+\r
+As I understood it, that would have required writing a custom query\r
+parser, a significant effort. At least nobody came up with a scheme to\r
+do the anchoring without the parser while addressing the other issues\r
+with the old folder: prefix.\r
+\r
+> I've always thought that the "cur" and "new" directories were somewhere\r
+> on the spectrum between pointless and annoying. The idea with the\r
+> original "folder:" indexing was to implicitly ignore these, (when both\r
+> existed).\r
+>\r
+> It seems that the new "folder:" continues this idea, while the new\r
+> "path:" does not.\r
+\r
+Correct.\r
+\r
+> Meanwhile, the new "folder:" anchors the search to the beginning of\r
+> the directory, while "path:" does not.\r
+\r
+Incorrect (or I don't understand you).\r
+\r
+> And finally, "path:" adds a magic syntax to do hierarchical matching\r
+> while "folder:" does not.\r
+\r
+Correct.\r
+\r
+> That's an odd hodgepodge of non-orthogonal distinction in\r
+> functionality.\r
+\r
+I'm sorry to hear you think that way. One is verbatim filesystem path,\r
+the other hides mail store folder implementation details as a\r
+convenience.\r
+\r
+\r
+BR,\r
+Jani.\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff