From 5675b7cc216ad6544b167d479aecbec2e34e3ac9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Bremner Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 21:56:57 +2100 Subject: [PATCH] Re: thread merge/split proposal --- fe/38df325d7ce1e604aa64bc94cb1e5a433bf9ff | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 103 insertions(+) create mode 100644 fe/38df325d7ce1e604aa64bc94cb1e5a433bf9ff diff --git a/fe/38df325d7ce1e604aa64bc94cb1e5a433bf9ff b/fe/38df325d7ce1e604aa64bc94cb1e5a433bf9ff new file mode 100644 index 000000000..52fe7ce96 --- /dev/null +++ b/fe/38df325d7ce1e604aa64bc94cb1e5a433bf9ff @@ -0,0 +1,103 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC386DE012F + for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:57:07 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.017 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[AWL=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] + autolearn=disabled +Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id UBqTkRowV1aT for ; + Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:56:59 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A653F6DE0127 + for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:56:59 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84) + (envelope-from ) + id 1apmdg-0003LR-28; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:57:08 -0400 +Received: (nullmailer pid 26271 invoked by uid 1000); + Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:56:57 -0000 +From: David Bremner +To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , + Notmuch Mail +Subject: Re: thread merge/split proposal +In-Reply-To: <87egabu5ta.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> +References: <87mvp9uwi4.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> + <87k2kdutao.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <878u0l8uyv.fsf@zancas.localnet> + <87egabu5ta.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+99~gd93d377 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:56:57 -0300 +Message-ID: <8737qr7ig6.fsf@zancas.localnet> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 +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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:57:07 -0000 + +Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: + +> I'm not sure what you mean by "signed" here (cryptographically signed? +> a term named "signed"? the idea that the term could be either positive +> or negative?), but i think your proposal is that we could have a +> "reference" term with a value of "+foo@example.com" or +> "-foo@example.com", instead of having a "join" term with value +> "foo@example.com" and a "split" term with value "foo@example.com" + +I was thinking mostly in terms of the UI. I think + +% notmuch reference +id1 -id2 $QUERY + +goes well with the tag interface. + +> I'm not sure i see much of a difference between +> +> a) introduce two new term types, "join" and "split", with unsigned +> values +> and +> +> b) introduce one new term type, "reference" with signed values + +Yeah, it's an implimentation detail, not clear to me that it matters. + +> both (a) and (b) complicate syncing solutions, but my original proposal +> of: +> +> c) just introduce a new term type "join" with unsigned value + +I just meant it isn't representable as folders, like tags are (not well, +but *shrug*). + +> is easy to sync, i think; i was going for the low-hanging fruit, and +> trying to not let it get caught up on the more-fully-featured +> arbitrary-split use case, though i understand the appeal of the generic +> approach. + +I'm a bit worried about UI proliferation with notmuch-join, +notmuch-unjoin now and maybe notmuch-split, notmuch-unsplit later. I'd +be fine with a more generic command with parts perhaps unimplimented. + +> So adding an explicit "join" document term (and figuring out how to +> represent it in "notmuch dump" and "notmuch restore") would be a strict +> improvement over the current situation, right? + +Making things generic in the right way will be less work in the long +run, I think. For example, if we had thought about more general terms +attached to a message in the last revision of dump/restore, we'd be done +now. -- 2.26.2