From 17a7eb7197d33ed8bf2e76ea74d04ac66a85f718 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Felipe Contreras Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:44:09 +1800 Subject: [PATCH] Re: Getting the right root mail of the thread --- 91/a962bcc045da50e71414cb1bcc86f9c2daee70 | 127 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 127 insertions(+) create mode 100644 91/a962bcc045da50e71414cb1bcc86f9c2daee70 diff --git a/91/a962bcc045da50e71414cb1bcc86f9c2daee70 b/91/a962bcc045da50e71414cb1bcc86f9c2daee70 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d26a70fe9 --- /dev/null +++ b/91/a962bcc045da50e71414cb1bcc86f9c2daee70 @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3EA429E47 + for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:17 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.799 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, + FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled +Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id W+3fMUlnMYBH for ; + Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:13 -0800 (PST) +Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com (mail-la0-f51.google.com + [209.85.215.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FC03429E38 + for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:13 -0800 (PST) +Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ep20so211234lab.24 + for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 13:44:09 -0800 (PST) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to + :cc:content-type; + bh=88kGWiHKZouXnMxC84BVLbePd4GxQltuwixh1X3HCvE=; + b=Bq94mWX3wRJklcdY1hLP9sNQIAgiEE//kO42/Ij004uIBqTfLcNXyBwxNN8fCaE4G6 + KLo9rElAEwOJE/K9uwsEvqPkJLcIlq7FjInq4R09/h36xVs3cb5rYu7cuuthERw0GsCZ + 9pVJAXSkK8+GSHM0VCZ8E7wk2Npd0V0lzsGdZbgwqNDC1bUwUs0LgW0zp1qr0+uLTWkG + U0JyfQl6kv/m7XSf4gUNIY80Xy2Tw+AGJd+3vO5fjX/8+tpF912xX4sC4N7dox2TAkCB + cQmCxBxQ90ZzQD83RKFK7Hy8O+V6JT4gUJc+TDNq0RdgQNV8tCgiQBZtdiT6pkHBHOth + UL/w== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.112.144.197 with SMTP id so5mr5021318lbb.22.1383515049317; + Sun, 03 Nov 2013 13:44:09 -0800 (PST) +Received: by 10.114.201.69 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:09 -0800 (PST) +In-Reply-To: <87k3gprzo0.fsf@jhu.edu> +References: <5274f93e254b5_6de7f51e7849@nysa.notmuch> + <87zjpmoqtz.fsf@nikula.org> <87k3gprzo0.fsf@jhu.edu> +Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:44:09 -0600 +Message-ID: + +Subject: Re: Getting the right root mail of the thread +From: Felipe Contreras +To: Jesse Rosenthal +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Cc: "notmuch@notmuchmail.org" +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 21:44:17 -0000 + +On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Jesse Rosenthal wrote: +> Jani Nikula writes: +>> I think it's actually worse than what your example demonstrates. It's +>> the subject of the newest/oldest *matching* message that gets used. In +>> your example, the first/last messages in the thread apparently match +>> your query. +> +> The behavior is there because subjects frequently change in long +> threads, and this allows the subject to refer to the most recent unread +> message (if we're sorting in the default order). The +> reason I requested and wrote in this behavior five years ago or so (my +> only c contribution ever) was that numerous business associates would +> keep email lists by replying and changing the subject. This is *very* +> common outside of programming circles. Even in programming circles, +> subjects frequently change on mailing list (with a "[was: ...]" +> appended). + +Yes but how important is it to keep track of that? + +I say it is much more important to track threads like this properly: + + foobar patch 0 (usually a summary/overview) + +-foobar patch 1 + | +-comment on patch 1 + +-foobar patch 2 + +-foobar patch 3 + | +-comment on patch 3 + +-foobar patch 4 + +-foobar patch 5 + +But fine, let's concentrate on the common user scenario (which is not +common for notmuch users at all). We can have a thread like this: + + No work on Friday + + Shall we go for some beers? (was: No work on Friday) + + What about project X? (was: No work on Friday) + +So which is the correct summary of the thread? The fact of the matter +is that we are talking about three threads now. + +Gmail does this correctly. Each time the subject is changed, it's +considered a new thread. + +> The current behavior can be annoying, but the old behavior could make +> the MUA quite unusable in a number of circumstances. (And yes, an MUA +> that fails on reading mail from senders with bad emailing practices is +> unusable for me.) + +This is rhetorical warfare. It's wouldn't be "failing on reading mail". + +If displaying the original subject is failing, then we might be +failing when searching with older first. Why would the order of the +search affect the thread summary? + +> Maybe there should be a "show original subject" toggle? That wouldn't be +> too hard, though it would require another call to the library and +> regenerating the search results. + +Yes. I say it should be a property of the query. I don't see why +anybody would want it any other way, but it wouldn't hurt to make it +an option. + +-- +Felipe Contreras -- 2.26.2