From 339aa4ac9a29f83b10d833dbad00fb9ef79c899e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michal Sojka Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:22:27 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] cli: address: Add --filter-by option to configure address filtering --- cb/02e6b1c0b30ebde82263a5841dbf028a5920dd | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 102 insertions(+) create mode 100644 cb/02e6b1c0b30ebde82263a5841dbf028a5920dd diff --git a/cb/02e6b1c0b30ebde82263a5841dbf028a5920dd b/cb/02e6b1c0b30ebde82263a5841dbf028a5920dd new file mode 100644 index 000000000..073568a64 --- /dev/null +++ b/cb/02e6b1c0b30ebde82263a5841dbf028a5920dd @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +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 19CB9431FD8 + for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 05:22:42 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: 0.138 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.138 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL=2.438, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] + 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 dv667reDBkf7 for ; + Fri, 9 Jan 2015 05:22:38 -0800 (PST) +Received: from max.feld.cvut.cz (max.feld.cvut.cz [147.32.192.36]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F56F431FC0 + for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 05:22:38 -0800 (PST) +Received: from localhost (unknown [192.168.200.7]) + by max.feld.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863994CC676; + Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:22:31 +0100 (CET) +X-Virus-Scanned: IMAP STYX AMAVIS +Received: from max.feld.cvut.cz ([192.168.200.1]) + by localhost (styx.feld.cvut.cz [192.168.200.7]) (amavisd-new, + port 10044) + with ESMTP id TcsanNIEJS13; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:22:27 +0100 (CET) +Received: from imap.feld.cvut.cz (imap.feld.cvut.cz [147.32.192.34]) + by max.feld.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F453CFF23; + Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:22:27 +0100 (CET) +Received: from wsh by steelpick.2x.cz with local (Exim 4.84) + (envelope-from ) + id 1Y9ZWF-0003M0-1i; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:22:27 +0100 +From: Michal Sojka +To: Tomi Ollila , David Bremner , + notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] cli: address: Add --filter-by option + to configure address filtering +In-Reply-To: +References: <1415147159-19946-1-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> + <1415147159-19946-11-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> + <87vbkrfs66.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> + +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.2+178~g6e9e8bb (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:22:27 +0100 +Message-ID: <87egr46qcs.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain +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: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:22:42 -0000 + +Hi, + +sorry for longer response time :) + +On Thu, Jan 01 2015, Tomi Ollila wrote: +> On Wed, Dec 31 2014, David Bremner wrote: +> +>> Michal Sojka writes: +>> +>>> This option allows to configure the criterion for duplicate address +>>> filtering. Without this option, all unique combinations of name and +>>> address parts are printed. This option allows to filter the output +>>> more, for example to only contain unique address parts. +>> +>> I had the feeling there was some "controversy" about the UI here, but +>> following back the 3 versions of the series I didn't see it. Does that +>> mean we just need to sanity check the code, or are there outstanding +>> bikes to shed? + +I'd tend to rename this option to --unique as it was in some previous +version of the patch. Another thing in my mind is the implementation of +the --complete option mentioned in id:878uid9qjl.fsf@nautilus.nautilus. +This would also involve some kind of address filtering. I'll look into +this and send patches later. + +> I have intentionally been guiet on this during the review process of the +> other patches to not slow down the acceptance of the others. I have not +> got enough time to look the implemenentation or think this last patch +> further -- from the user interface point of view I recall seeing there +> both useless features (but which might be warranted by implementation +> simplicity) and missing features (but which might not be there due to +> difficulty in implementation). Also, I am not sure whether the --filter-by +> is good option (and options descriptive...)... + +I'd be interested in what are these "missing features". + +Cheers, +-Michal -- 2.26.2