Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:12:38 +1300
From: martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net>
To: notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Message-ID: <20100108031238.GD23442@lapse.rw.madduck.net>
Mail-Followup-To: notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3wdzl59mjik.fsf@testarossa.amd.com>
	<87my1kkzbn.fsf@marten.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	<87ocm64ivu.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<87ljha3avx.fsf@home.veldthuis.com>
	<87ws0ug23f.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<1260400470-sup-5775@testarossa>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [notmuch] Threading
Precedence: list


--fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

also sprach Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> [2009.12.11.0639 +1300]:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:21:34 -0700, Mark Anderson <markr.anderson@amd.com>=
 wrote:
> > I was wondering if there's a way in notmuch to group un-associated
> > threads into a single thread.
>=20
> There's certainly nothing like that in notmuch currently.
>=20
> Sup had user-level functionality in the interface for stitching
> messages into a single thread, and I definitely think that that
> doesn't make any sense.

Why doesn't it make sense? Mutt does it too, and stitching means
actually (re)writing In-Reply-To and References headers.

I think this is one of the most useful "productivity features" in
mutt.

I also think that threading is a preference thing. As Carl said in
a later message:

> Just this morning I sent a mail to the notmuch list, which was
> a reply, (and legitimately so), but also potentially of interest
> to everyone on the list, (since it was regarding a bug fix
> unrelated to the original topic of the thread I was replying to).
>=20
> So I was stuck on whether I should break the thread or not, (at
> the sending end). I guess I could have just sent a quick "this is
> pushed" reply, and independently composed a separate message
> telling people about the fix.
>=20
> I ended up keeping the threading intact in that case, (which
> I think is right).

I often thread forwarded messages (and their followups) with the
thread because all my information management currently is
thread-oriented.

I think being able to freely break and tie threads in a trivial way
is a definite plus!

> But I still have a hard time justifying user operations to
> manipulate threading. The whole point of threading is to make it
> faster to process and read messages. But manual operations like
> joining and splitting threads seem like the user just doing more
> work, and that *after* having read the messages. So that seems
> mostly backwards to me.

Reading is one thing. Information storage and organisation is
another. After a message is delivered (and read) to my mailbox, it's
really mine and I can (and should be able) to affix it and integrate
it into my organisational scheme any way I want, don't you think?

--=20
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
=20
"if there's anything more important than my ego,
 i want it caught and shot now."
                                                -- zaphod beeblebrox
=20
spamtraps: madduck.bogus@madduck.net

--fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="digital_signature_gpg.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREDAAYFAktGoqYACgkQIgvIgzMMSnVMDQCgtMy9gnEnA5lZnBtmqfSApfiM
pJ0An2teX/uyJ9MD5YVXgz2tQLLk/teo
=Qap8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR--