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 49277421186 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] 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 eXfiZTkYs2UX for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu [131.215.239.19]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CDF429E5F for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fire-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fire-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A33328134; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:05:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on fire-doxen by amavisd-new Received: from servo.finestructure.net (m17.ligo.caltech.edu [131.215.115.117]) (Authenticated sender: jrollins) by fire-doxen-submit (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9D73280B8; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by servo.finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 191D355D; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jameson Graef Rollins To: Jani Nikula , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] emacs: Add pseudo saved search to match mail that no saved search matches In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5-292-gaa2fa19 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:14:05 -0700 Message-ID: <87liwkxxfm.fsf@servo.factory.finestructure.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:14:12 -0000 --=-=-= On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:31:31 +0000, Jani Nikula wrote: > Add a pseudo saved search that matches all the mail that no other saved > search matches. Add new customization option notmuch-saved-searches-nomatch > to enable and name the pseudo saved search. Hi, Jani. I haven't looked too closely at these patches yet, although they seem to look ok at first glance. However, I would like to argue *against* using new customization variables for the names of certain static saved searches. For instance I don't see the point of the "notmuch-saved-searches-nomatch" and "notmuch-tags-nomatch" customization variables. Do people *really* need to be able to customize those names? Why not just pick a sensible name and go with it? Customization is great, but if there's too much the code and customization UI become overly cluttered and hard to parse. jmho jamie. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOC3l9AAoJEO00zqvie6q890wP/2HV31e2eRYePtUErJ+q4XM2 rMHzsJe2QW3AmK+nagtnvJxHZnzgYf9Ih3tjc/PUSUIHYv8L277376oLyv2ZPb57 d/ZbTXNJD7+ViOef9jlVHbULYG6op4IyZd4okkgG6g4J1u9aVQWkvLymSNd+1zk2 KDcA0SzePVqcx3tm/j3wWPip3GCD9Fdl0Q2tRWZKi4vHAuZwLHAUid8Xw0w3VJsK TiKe+aFLcFA3XpvvP4EG93TFrycu1D0qmHrs+xba2o1V8tT7nXGKxoZ3AOeTZ+UI 2QiT1Qg3IS21t5FLGl5Azp6cOvKpC9mfSlAmdku4rP7uEf0qDKzUD7c8ulkqpAXt p24nM2O9G/lwsOFT6yde83O2nhcrmX2sCW9iysoZGTNl2j6JRpywQBURb1SMnPhs XEbOkV6N6vHbhRXvI3YHrTWsNtb+HSRlk1xCo3WCTNH6i2hwUTtWQ+OOivUZD1+a 8ADjqTv+Riqpf6T59PP/uSgGudcA5HunrHnPgUQo1A7bsY73PT0pG9WGKD9ZY4Wm /1pdzafpYooFcFuL01JIJh59JJhh+76dsDmKXnnOPWMngnnrkYglhDDSEOzprvOs LDdwnnRx8D8XaZKpFukAhCqPBmsSYmuAQD3B0j4Nyco1xBZFYGp+1N1epnT2nALD 0jEzPJn30WKWXvn1WeVC =04Vy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--