From: James Vasile <james@hackervisions.org>
To: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
In-Reply-To: <87r5o8stbj.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
References: <87hbp5j9dv.fsf@hackervisions.org>
	<87r5o8stbj.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:09:00 -0500
Message-ID: <87ocjc4rsj.fsf@hackervisions.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [notmuch] Initial tagging
Precedence: list

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:02:08 -0800, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> One distinction is that I have all of my "notmuch tag" commands operate
> globally rather than just on new messages. One of the things that really
> annoyed be about sup was that the support for automatic tagging worked
> as a hook on messages as they were processed. So I couldn't use any of
> the tags for searches prior to the time that I had added a particular
> tag rule. I definitely didn't want to replicate that bug.

Sometimes I manually override a rule-based tag.  If automatic tagging
operated on old messages, overrides could be superseded.  When I add
automatic tag rules, I first execute them manually and globally from the
command line.

> To do my "global" searches quickly, I do a similar subsetting, but it's
> much simpler. If I'm adding the "notmuch" tag I do "and not
> tag:notmuch". We've even had the proposal of making "notmuch tag" do
> that automatically.

That sounds like a good idea.  What happened with that proposal?

> Meanwhile, I'm planning on eventually moving entirely away from any tags
> that are driven entirely by searches like this. Instead, I'd like to
> just have good support for "saved searches" where we have some syntax to
> perform string expansion on configured search terms. 

Saved searches is a very good idea.  I look forward to it.