--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>\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 DFD2F431FAF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 11:06:26 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: 0.502\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,\r
+ NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, 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 xGYDvnc5di7Q for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Wed, 7 May 2014 11:06:21 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail1.qmul.ac.uk (mail1.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.7])\r
+ (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+ (No client certificate requested)\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA000431FAE\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 11:06:20 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])\r
+ by mail1.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)\r
+ (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+ id 1Wi6ES-0003Y1-En; Wed, 07 May 2014 19:06:16 +0100\r
+Received: from 188.28.151.112.threembb.co.uk ([188.28.151.112] helo=localhost)\r
+ by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71)\r
+ (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+ id 1Wi6EO-0003QR-Q3; Wed, 07 May 2014 19:06:16 +0100\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [Patch v3 0/3] emacs: show: redesign unread/read logic\r
+In-Reply-To: <cunwqdxfwxn.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>\r
+References: <1395777793-13297-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+ <cunwqdxfwxn.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+615~g78e3a93 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 19:06:08 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <87a9atmpkf.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 188.28.151.112\r
+X-QM-Geographic: According to ripencc,\r
+ this message was delivered by a machine in Britain (UK) (GB).\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: fd8c1d6eb2a611d2c2787744fd63ce80 (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: 0.0\r
+X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: /\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to\r
+ determine if it is\r
+ spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.\r
+ This message scored 0.0 points. Summary of the scoring: \r
+ * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+ provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\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: Wed, 07 May 2014 18:06:27 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+On Wed, 07 May 2014, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:\r
+> On Tue, Mar 25 2014, Mark Walters wrote:\r
+>> The third patch adds my attempt at a plausible logic. I find it works\r
+>> very well: it usually does both what I expect and what I want.\r
+>\r
+> Whilst I think that the patch is well done, I don't like the resulting\r
+> behaviour. That is a personal preference, of course. At the moment it\r
+> doesn't seem that there is a way to accept this patch and (optionally)\r
+> retain the existing behaviour. Do you have any thoughts on how we might\r
+> achieve that?\r
+\r
+Thanks for looking and for the feedback. I should emphasise to everyone\r
+that I would like all feedback whether positive or negative!\r
+\r
+> I don't have a strong preference for the default behaviour, though I\r
+> suspect that something closer to the current behaviour (where a message\r
+> is marked seen when it becomes the current message[1]) would better\r
+> match user expectation (but this is an opinion, not something founded in\r
+> fact).\r
+\r
+Just for the record I will detail what happens currently and then I have\r
+a couple questions about your suggestion.\r
+\r
+A message is marked read if:\r
+\r
+1) if you navigate to a message using n/p (next/prev open message) \r
+\r
+2) if you navigate to it using N/P (next/prev message) regardless of\r
+whether the message is open or closed.\r
+\r
+3) if you go to it using n.s.next-matching-message (not bound by\r
+default) whether message is open or closed.\r
+\r
+4) when you enter a buffer and notmuch goes to the first open message.\r
+\r
+but not marked read in cases like:\r
+\r
+1) opening a message\r
+\r
+2) viewing or entering a message using other notmuch navigation such as\r
+notmuch-show-advance and friends (bound to space)\r
+\r
+3) viewing or entering a message using arrow keys, page-up page-down,\r
+ctrl-v mouse clicks etc\r
+\r
+Personally, I think marking a closed message read is a bug, and not\r
+marking it read when opening it is too (at least in many cases). The\r
+other problem with the current approach (in my view) is that if you try\r
+to use the navigation commands non-interactively then messages end up\r
+being marked read, even if they are never displayed to the user. Linking\r
+into the post-command-hook means that this should "just work".\r
+\r
+Questions: What does it mean for a message to be the current message?\r
+Is it just point being in the message? Would you be happy with a message\r
+being marked read when point entered the message? That could be done\r
+from the post-command-hook infrastructure to fix some of the problems\r
+mentioned above.\r
+\r
+I think that is likely that people will disagree on how they want this\r
+to work so I would like to try and make it customisable so I would\r
+definitely be interested to see if I can get the behaviour you would\r
+like from this infrastructure (or something similar).\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff