From: Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, racin@free.fr, Sebastian Spaeth
	<Sebastian@SSpaeth.de>
In-Reply-To: <87ljeiwi02.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
References:
 <1161359196.2247691263984967906.JavaMail.root@zimbra1-e1.priv.proxad.net>
	<87sk8qwjlt.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<87tyt61mrl.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<87ljeiwi02.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:46:22 -0500
Message-ID: <87ocje1koh.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Cc: notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH] add notmuch-show-delete keybinding 'd'
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:28:29 -0800, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:01:18 -0500, Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructu=
re.net> wrote:
> > > 2. It removes the "inbox" and "unread" tags while adding the tag to
> > >    indicate deletion.
> >=20
> > Hey, Carl.  Why is this last point important?
>=20
> I guess I was imagining the case of running "notmuch search tag:inbox"
> at the command-line. That output will get out of hand fairly quickly if
> it includes all deleted messages back to the beginning of time, (or as
> far back as the window of actually deleting files from the
> mailstore[*]).
>=20
> But you're right that tags should really be handled orthogonally. Maybe
> what we want is lower-level support for the "deleted" tag? Other than
> just the high-level emacs interface?

Yeah, I tend to think that notmuch should be as agnostic about tag
handling as possible.  The beauty of that is that it keeps things as
simple and configurable as possible, which is necessary because everyone
will have a different way they want to do things.

The point of the functions provided by these patches is basically just
convenience.  In fact, I had implemented the functions I previously
included in my own private .el, since I didn't know if they would be
wanted by all others.  In general, I'm a big fan of "keep it simple"
(KIS).  In this case that means "if I want to add a delete tag, the tool
should do just that and nothing else".  I certainly don't want the other
tags modified.  If one did, it's really quite easy to write custom emacs
functions to do that.  We can just hints on doing that in the wiki if
need be.

> That could put *more* direct interpretation of specific tags in the low
> levels. And this is the opposite direction of where we've been going (or
> talking about at least). We've currently got "inbox" and "unread" inside
> the low levels and there's been talking or removing those, switching to
> just "new" or making it all configurable.

This isn't a bad idea at all.  I don't think it changes the
functionality much, but it does make things conceptually much simpler,
which I'm always in favor of (KIS).

jamie.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
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=1dP1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--