Re: [notmuch] [PATCH] Rework saving of attachments.

diff --git a/47/6ca28dba437313ff5dad4740149d4cf06018ee b/47/6ca28dba437313ff5dad4740149d4cf06018ee
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..fd3c00e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/47/6ca28dba437313ff5dad4740149d4cf06018ee
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+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 92EAF431FBC\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:12:39 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.951\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=-0.152, BAYES_50=0.001] 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 lkmoVg8bc1LQ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:12:38 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from yoom.home.cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62C3431FAE;\r
+       Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:12:38 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: by yoom.home.cworth.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)\r
+       id 1EF8725427B; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:12:37 -0800 (PST)\r
+From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>\r
+To: camalot@picnicpark.org, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+In-Reply-To: <1260814438-4195-2-git-send-email-camalot@picnicpark.org>\r
+References: <87my1m323m.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>\r
+       <1260814438-4195-1-git-send-email-camalot@picnicpark.org>\r
+       <1260814438-4195-2-git-send-email-camalot@picnicpark.org>\r
+Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:12:36 -0800\r
+Message-ID: <87d3zvwyu3.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
+Cc: Keith Amidon <keith@nicira.com>\r
+Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH] Rework saving of attachments.\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: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:12:39 -0000\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+\r
+On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:13:58 -0800, camalot@picnicpark.org wrote:\r
+> From: Keith Amidon <keith@nicira.com>\r
+\r
+Hi Keith,\r
+\r
+I apologize for the extraordinarly-late review, but here it is...\r
+\r
+I tried this patch out, wanted to like it, and almost pushed it out, but\r
+I decided against it in its current form. Here are some thoughts:\r
+\r
+1. The commit message ("rework saving of attachments") is not\r
+   adequate. It doesn't actually say what the commit does, (how can I\r
+   test whether things have been reworked?). If the vagueness of the\r
+   message is because the commit is changing several different aspects\r
+   of behavior, then I would argue that the commit should be split up\r
+   into separate pieces.\r
+\r
+2. A binding to save a single attachment (with only a prefix argument to\r
+   select which) just isn't usable. First, there's nothing in the UI to\r
+   indicate the appropriate numbers to pass as the prefix argument,\r
+   (other than manually counting the attachments). And second, the\r
+   functionality is simply too hidden and non-obvious. This is most\r
+   dangerous because in the common case of a single attachment, the 'w'\r
+   binding will seem to be saving all attachments setting up confusion\r
+   if the user tries to save multiple attachments with this same\r
+   keybinding.\r
+\r
+   Now, having a function to save a single attachment is just fine,\r
+   (leaving someone else to hook up a binding to a particular button,\r
+   say). So I'd accept a patch that added that, but didn't add a direct\r
+   key-binding for it.\r
+\r
+3. For saving multiple attachments, the feature I'd really like to see\r
+   is the ability to specify a single directory and have all the\r
+   attachments saved there.\r
+\r
+Obviously, this third feature is just something different than what the\r
+patch does, so not necessarily a reason to reject the patch. So what is\r
+it that the patch actually does again?\r
+\r
+I think the big advantage of the patch is getting rid of the initial\r
+prompting "save this attachment (foo)?". It occurs to me that a simpler\r
+way to get rid of that would be to simply not ask that question when the\r
+user hits 'w' and there *is* only a single attachment. Then, with\r
+multiple attachments, 'w' could prompt in turn as currently.\r
+\r
+That would leave open the ability to use 'W' for a command to write all\r
+attachments to a particular directory.\r
+\r
+So that's one idea, at least. What do you think?\r
+\r
+-Carl\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
+\r
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)\r
+\r
+iD8DBQFLhCik6JDdNq8qSWgRAhqXAKCIbMR9jYdOuK4tKPEkPrZCGUXT0ACfXFhD\r
+gx1I/+4jTl1VWzX7rci/8mQ=\r
+=Rld/\r
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+--=-=-=--\r