--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>\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 99A95431FDB\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 07:29:25 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: 0.138\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.138 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL=2.438, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3]\r
+ 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 gLiHiy-CEDEG for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Fri, 9 Jan 2015 07:29:23 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from max.feld.cvut.cz (max.feld.cvut.cz [147.32.192.36])\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078EF431FD8\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 07:29:23 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from localhost (unknown [192.168.200.7])\r
+ by max.feld.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706CE4CC66C;\r
+ Fri, 9 Jan 2015 16:29:22 +0100 (CET)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: IMAP STYX AMAVIS\r
+Received: from max.feld.cvut.cz ([192.168.200.1])\r
+ by localhost (styx.feld.cvut.cz [192.168.200.7]) (amavisd-new,\r
+ port 10044)\r
+ with ESMTP id lw0wHGCfw91H; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 16:29:18 +0100 (CET)\r
+Received: from imap.feld.cvut.cz (imap.feld.cvut.cz [147.32.192.34])\r
+ by max.feld.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B1C4CC675;\r
+ Fri, 9 Jan 2015 16:29:18 +0100 (CET)\r
+Received: from wsh by steelpick.2x.cz with local (Exim 4.84)\r
+ (envelope-from <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>)\r
+ id 1Y9bUz-0004dw-Sx; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 16:29:17 +0100\r
+From: Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>\r
+To: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>, David Bremner <david@tethera.net>,\r
+ notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] cli: address: Add --filter-by\r
+ option to configure address filtering\r
+In-Reply-To: <m2h9w0ujo3.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>\r
+References: <1415147159-19946-1-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>\r
+ <1415147159-19946-11-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>\r
+ <87vbkrfs66.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>\r
+ <m2d26yhfmk.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>\r
+ <87egr46qcs.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz>\r
+ <m2h9w0ujo3.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.2+178~g6e9e8bb (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 16:29:17 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <871tn46khe.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\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: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:29:25 -0000\r
+\r
+On Fri, Jan 09 2015, Tomi Ollila wrote:\r
+> On Fri, Jan 09 2015, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:\r
+>\r
+>> Hi,\r
+>>\r
+>> sorry for longer response time :)\r
+>>\r
+>> On Thu, Jan 01 2015, Tomi Ollila wrote:\r
+>>> On Wed, Dec 31 2014, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:\r
+>>>\r
+>>>> Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> writes:\r
+>>>>\r
+>>>>> This option allows to configure the criterion for duplicate address\r
+>>>>> filtering. Without this option, all unique combinations of name and\r
+>>>>> address parts are printed. This option allows to filter the output\r
+>>>>> more, for example to only contain unique address parts.\r
+>>>>\r
+>>>> I had the feeling there was some "controversy" about the UI here, but\r
+>>>> following back the 3 versions of the series I didn't see it. Does that\r
+>>>> mean we just need to sanity check the code, or are there outstanding\r
+>>>> bikes to shed?\r
+>>\r
+>> I'd tend to rename this option to --unique as it was in some previous\r
+>> version of the patch. Another thing in my mind is the implementation of\r
+>> the --complete option mentioned in id:878uid9qjl.fsf@nautilus.nautilus.\r
+>> This would also involve some kind of address filtering. I'll look into\r
+>> this and send patches later.\r
+>>\r
+>>> I have intentionally been guiet on this during the review process of the\r
+>>> other patches to not slow down the acceptance of the others. I have not\r
+>>> got enough time to look the implemenentation or think this last patch\r
+>>> further -- from the user interface point of view I recall seeing there\r
+>>> both useless features (but which might be warranted by implementation\r
+>>> simplicity) and missing features (but which might not be there due to \r
+>>> difficulty in implementation). Also, I am not sure whether the --filter-by\r
+>>> is good option (and options descriptive...)...\r
+>>\r
+>> I'd be interested in what are these "missing features".\r
+>\r
+> Last night when I tried to catch sleep I was also thinking of this...\r
+> ... let's see what I remember...\r
+>\r
+> First, Currently if we have addresses:\r
+>\r
+> "Uni Que" <unique@example.org>\r
+> "Uni Que" <Unique@Example.Org>\r
+>\r
+> I presume these are thought as a separate addresses -- and an option to\r
+> thought these as the same would be useful.\r
+\r
+Yes, this would correspond to --unique=addrfold or --unique=nameaddrfold\r
+from my patch.\r
+\r
+> but let's consider second set of addresses:\r
+>\r
+> "Uni Que" <unique@example.org>\r
+> "Uni Keko" <unique@example.org>\r
+>\r
+> Now, if there were an option to consider these 2 as the same, that would\r
+> hide user from one of the names -- It is clear that "Uni Que" is the right\r
+> one but if only "Uni Keko" (sleepyhead, that is) is shown user don't have\r
+> a choice to select the right one. I am not sure what the use case for\r
+> "uniquing" these 2 were.\r
+\r
+For example, when you are interested in the number of people involved in\r
+a discussion. You care only about the address and not about the names.\r
+Perhaps you'd like to see only the addresses in the output and not the\r
+names in this case, wouldn't you?\r
+\r
+> Finally (for now), 3rd set of addresses\r
+>\r
+> "Uni Que" <unique@example.org>\r
+> "Uni Que" <unique@foobar.invalid>\r
+>\r
+> Now, if there were an option to consider these 2 as same, and\r
+> user is then given "Uni Que" <unique@foobar.invalid> (which clearly is\r
+> the wrong one) I don't see the usefullness of this option...\r
+\r
+I agree. This would correspond to --unique=name. So I'll drop this\r
+option.\r
+\r
+-Michal\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff