--- /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 19567431FBF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 06:54:29 -0800 (PST)\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 Gkz3wK1sj3ui for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Sat, 1 Feb 2014 06:54:25 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com (mail-ee0-f46.google.com\r
+ [74.125.83.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client\r
+ certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id\r
+ 14F28431FBD for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 06:54:24 -0800\r
+ (PST)\r
+Received: by mail-ee0-f46.google.com with SMTP id c13so2754427eek.5\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 06:54:23 -0800 (PST)\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=hOpNcrd+p+Y+5ZMi3qG1FeBvJQSXKRiclwMdusszEH0=;\r
+ b=QL5jkEp0lcNBTGoSw06qsX/Ws1UdfR0SsHCgMlAqmI/h0S2nnIv6JOLIvXoWZJlia2\r
+ zDIPrjvlPFid9GUzrpoUfMOV/lzHVnXvZ7uFlxD5WZgtVu2/Z8iUOY/G8fJ9dBz9diAB\r
+ NXPtWhhYkF7lS7RtweYm8MdGiu3aAvvudsEgkpiCqCIO7O/iDeA+0Ln3ICEtbDruidGN\r
+ A2zk/pu3dqtey3Gn2VN6HIszVU1twBubHRrOGJ7OQgYVrjaA1o7Eq4bzhQ4vMkMeoyS7\r
+ wFtkhUg6UjGVxjYRkN1wdCXcNBqFlDzPhddky5kp0nRyVRYmvO3b16YeOyRNQT7fAJIx\r
+ 5Nbg==\r
+X-Gm-Message-State:\r
+ ALoCoQn07yRBTY5bTI1U0uSJUUzobMV7kaa45tmCNKaGrrKPbcl5NrsBIwedA19yysgNj8T99s93\r
+X-Received: by 10.14.2.193 with SMTP id 41mr21090234eef.55.1391266462369;\r
+ Sat, 01 Feb 2014 06:54:22 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw2-58c36f-91.dhcp.inet.fi.\r
+ [88.195.111.91])\r
+ by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g1sm50286382eet.6.2014.02.01.06.54.20\r
+ for <multiple recipients>\r
+ (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);\r
+ Sat, 01 Feb 2014 06:54:21 -0800 (PST)\r
+From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>\r
+To: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] lib: make folder: prefix literal\r
+In-Reply-To: <20140130220234.GI4375@mit.edu>\r
+References: <cover.1389304779.git.jani@nikula.org>\r
+ <87y525m649.fsf@awakening.csail.mit.edu>\r
+ <87r47wfltb.fsf@nikula.org> <87iot8f4vg.fsf@nikula.org>\r
+ <20140130220234.GI4375@mit.edu>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17+44~ge3b4cd9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:54:19 +0200\r
+Message-ID: <87fvo2yjc4.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: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 14:54:29 -0000\r
+\r
+On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:\r
+> What if we introduce two prefixes, say folder: and path: (maybe dir:?)\r
+> to address both use cases, each as naturally as possible? Both would\r
+> be boolean prefixes because of the limitations of probabilistic\r
+> prefixes, but we could take advantage of Jani's idea of generating\r
+> several boolean terms.\r
+\r
+Agreed. On to details:\r
+\r
+> folder: could work the way I suggested (simply the path to the file,\r
+> with {cur,new} stripped off).\r
+\r
+What if the file is not in a folder named cur/new? I suggest indexing\r
+the folder as-is, if only for some backwards compatibility.\r
+\r
+What if there is not all of cur/new/tmp folders? I suggest ignoring\r
+that, and only look at the path to the file being indexed. This is\r
+simplest to implement, and it does not matter if the sibling directories\r
+come and go, and for this reason also unsurprising.\r
+\r
+For top level cur/new, index the empty string "".\r
+\r
+> path: would support file system search\r
+> uses. These seem more varied, but I think fall into exact match and\r
+> recursive match. Since I don't have this use case, I can't have any\r
+> strong opinions about syntax, but I'll throw out an idea: many shells\r
+> support "**" for recursive path matching and people are already quite\r
+> familiar with glob patterns for paths, so why not simply adopt this?\r
+> In other words, when adding the path "a/b/cur/x:2," add path: terms\r
+> "a/b/cur" and "a/b/**" and "a/**" and "**".\r
+\r
+Since folder: would cover the cur/new cases, I suggest the non-recursive\r
+variant of path: prefix is the exact filesystem folder name as-is (with\r
+the top level being the empty string ""). I presume this is what you\r
+meant too.\r
+\r
+I kind of like the "/**" suffix for recursive, but there's two small\r
+wrinkles: 1) it needs quoting on the command line (unlike my original\r
+suggestion of just "/" suffix), and 2) what should the top level\r
+recursive search be? path:"**" or path:"/**" or path:"./**"? I guess the\r
+first one is most obvious?\r
+\r
+So here's what my original suggestions would become:\r
+\r
+>> Here's a thought. With boolean prefix folder:, we can devise a scheme\r
+>> where the folder: query defines what is to be matched.\r
+>> \r
+>> For example:\r
+>> \r
+>> folder:foo match files in foo, foo/new, and foo/cur.\r
+\r
+-> folder:foo\r
+\r
+>> folder:foo/ match all files in all subdirectories under foo (this\r
+>> would handle Tomi's use case), including foo/new and foo/cur.\r
+\r
+-> path:"foo/**"\r
+\r
+>> folder:foo/. match in foo only, and specifically not in foo/cur or foo/new.\r
+\r
+-> path:foo\r
+\r
+>> folder:foo/new match in foo/new, and specifically not in foo/cur (this\r
+>> allows distinguishing between messages in cur and new).\r
+\r
+-> path:foo/new\r
+\r
+>> folder:/ match everything.\r
+\r
+-> path:"**"\r
+\r
+>> folder:/. match in top level maildir only.\r
+\r
+-> path:""\r
+\r
+>> folder:"" match in top level maildir, including cur/new.\r
+\r
+-> folder:""\r
+\r
+\r
+I'd like these details to be ironed out and agreed on before I send the\r
+next version.\r
+\r
+BR,\r
+Jani.\r
+\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff