From abdace450f8a024e55b59c8a1939db4a86bbb70f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Austin Clements Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 12:22:02 +2000 Subject: [PATCH] Re: Emacs: how to remove "unread" tag while reading emails --- 55/5f9aad9d0be732236be8527f35f19b21d17468 | 184 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 184 insertions(+) create mode 100644 55/5f9aad9d0be732236be8527f35f19b21d17468 diff --git a/55/5f9aad9d0be732236be8527f35f19b21d17468 b/55/5f9aad9d0be732236be8527f35f19b21d17468 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e1b0cb177 --- /dev/null +++ b/55/5f9aad9d0be732236be8527f35f19b21d17468 @@ -0,0 +1,184 @@ +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 D7335431FBC + for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 09:22:15 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.7 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[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 D-WVkyTAV6c6 for ; + Sat, 5 Oct 2013 09:22:09 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu + [18.9.25.12]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C53431FAF + for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 09:22:09 -0700 (PDT) +X-AuditID: 1209190c-b7fd38e0000009aa-5d-52503cb03f03 +Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) + by dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP + id 17.15.02474.0BC30525; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 12:22:08 -0400 (EDT) +Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) + by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id r95GM6BG000374; + Sat, 5 Oct 2013 12:22:08 -0400 +Received: from awakening.csail.mit.edu (awakening.csail.mit.edu [18.26.4.91]) + (authenticated bits=0) + (User authenticated as amdragon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) + by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id r95GM4VX007415 + (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); + Sat, 5 Oct 2013 12:22:05 -0400 +Received: from amthrax by awakening.csail.mit.edu with local (Exim 4.80) + (envelope-from ) + id 1VSUcF-0001dB-9B; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:22:03 -0400 +Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 12:22:02 -0400 +From: Austin Clements +To: Mark Walters +Subject: Re: Emacs: how to remove "unread" tag while reading emails +Message-ID: <20131005162202.GJ21611@mit.edu> +References: <87hadi0xse.fsf@boo.workgroup> + <87pprk3whs.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Content-Disposition: inline +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit +In-Reply-To: <87pprk3whs.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) +X-Brightmail-Tracker: + H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrKKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6norvBJiDI4PxaOYvVc3ksrt+cyWwx + YdlXdgdmj52z7rJ7LN60n83j2apbzAHMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZZ869Yy9oVa1YuWw/cwPj + X5kuRk4OCQETictrFjND2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEtjHKPFr+TwWCGcDo0TbgWPMEM4pJom3R/cx + QjhLGCXm7u1iBOlnEVCRONNwlQnEZhPQkNi2fzlYXERAR+L2oQXsIDazgL3E2pufwOLCAs4S + XbvngNm8QDXLG6aA2UICHhJv77xkgogLSpyc+YQFoldd4s+8S0BXcADZ0hLL/3FAhOUlmrfO + BnuBE2jt6+3tYLYo0DlTTm5jm8AoPAvJpFlIJs1CmDQLyaQFjCyrGGVTcqt0cxMzc4pTk3WL + kxPz8lKLdA31cjNL9FJTSjcxgmKDU5JnB+Obg0qHGAU4GJV4eD/u8A8SYk0sK67MPcQoycGk + JMprAowsIb6k/JTKjMTijPii0pzU4kOMEhzMSiK8Jj+AynlTEiurUovyYVLSHCxK4rw3OeyD + hATSE0tSs1NTC1KLYLIyHBxKEryHrYGGChalpqdWpGXmlCCkmTg4QYbzAA1/ClLDW1yQmFuc + mQ6RP8WoKCXOKwRykQBIIqM0D64XlrpeMYoDvSLM+xyknQeY9uC6XwENZgIaHCXhCzK4JBEh + JdXAKC/3KmZHg8bKZZNLmP7Wu4oG7pQQsEhuPGD9wZPn85RQgQarZ+6/P5d+mjwhL6/gKmv1 + x+2/dn26+nBjTYkjv++xc21SB51VWO7YWPz82VP660frrrqHT9JPR703WVxmlahdkyvDesaz + Zbep9SPBeXGb6lbXH7z+znKe0L8vFhPtimQSn/19q8RSnJFoqMVcVJwIAJGhhOY4AwAA +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: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 16:22:16 -0000 + +Great list. + +One of the problems with the current approach, which most of these +options share, is that there's no feedback. For example, when I enter +a thread, I have no idea if the first message was unread or not. I'd +like a solution that either naturally doesn't have this problem, that +visually indicates that a message *was* unread, or that delays all +unread marking until you leave the thread (possibly combined with a +visual indication of what will be marked unread). Bonus points if +it's easy to adjust what happens, such as saying "keep everything +unread" or "keep everything unread except this one". + +To this end, here are my two proposals: + +A1) Mark whole thread read when you leave it (via q, X, A or friends) +and provide a binding to leave a thread without marking it read (C-x k +would do, but we should provide an explicit one; perhaps C-u prefixing +other "leave" bindings? For once, C-u is easy to remember because u +is the first letter of unread). + +A2) Like A1, but mark only messages up to and containing point when +you leave a thread. + +In either case, I'd like an echo message when I leave the thread +telling me what happened ("Thread marked as read", "First 3 messages +marked as read; thread archived", etc.). These would blend especially +well with undo, because they would bundle together all read marking +into a single action that would make sense to undo ("Thread marked as +read [C-/ to undo]"). + +Both options are highly predictable and easy to understand. They +don't lose information about which messages were unread when you +entered a thread. And they're easy to adjust (you can always -unread +a message manually and then C-u q or whatever to leave without +touching anything else). + +Quoth Mark Walters on Oct 05 at 10:19 am: +> +> Hello +> +> I agree that the unread tag does not work well. There are some instances +> which I would class as plain bugs (notmuch-show-next-message which is +> bound to N marks the new message read even if it is collapsed) and +> other instances where it is not clear what the correct behaviour should +> be. +> +> I have messed around a bit and there seem to be a lot of possible +> variants and I don't know whether any would have any consensus. +> +> One clear divide is whether we should only mark "visited messages" (ie +> ones reached using space, n,N,p,P etc in the current bindings) or we +> should also make messages seen by scrolling past (eg with page down). +> +> Anyway here is a list of some possibilities. In all cases I assume we do +> not mark any collapsed message read. +> +> 1) Mark a message read when we visit it. +> 2) Mark a message read when we visit it and the leave it with a "visit +> move" (eg n for next message) +> +> 3) Mark a message read if we see the start of the message in the buffer. +> 4) Mark a message read if we have seen the start and end of the message +> in the buffer. +> 5) Mark a message read if we see the end of the message after seeing the +> start (rationale moving to the top of the buffer is likely "movement" +> rather than "reading") +> +> 6) Something based on how we leave the message: eg page down could mark +> all messages which were fully visible read, n (next-open message) could +> mark the message being left read. +> 7) Similar to 6) but something where read necessarily includes have seen +> the start of the message. +> +> I think all of these are reasonably easy to implement, and I think I +> know which I would like (something like 5 or 7) but it would be +> interesting to know if there is any general view or any view on how +> customisable this should be. +> +> Does anyone have any thoughts? +> +> Best wishes +> +> Mark +> +> +> +> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Gregor Zattler wrote: +> > Dear notmuchers, +> > +> > I had difficulties to reliably remove the "unread" tag from +> > messages. Mostly I page through threads with the space bar and +> > all is well. But when the beginning of the thread is already +> > collapsed and I "jump" in the middle of a message pressing space +> > bar does not remove the unread tag. It's only removed when +> > *entering* the message via space bar from the previous message. +> > So the last press on space bar in the previous message jumps to +> > the next message and at the same time removes its unread tag. +> > +> > This seems strange to me. I would say the unread tag should be +> > removed when leaving the message with the last press on space +> > bar, indicating that one really paged trough the whole message +> > instead of only seeing the very beginning of it. +> > +> > What’s the rationale to this behaviour? Am I missing something? +> > +> > Thanks for your attention, gregor -- 2.26.2