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 23D8B421192 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:15:30 -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 nS1josoN0WCx for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com (mail-qy0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BFE142118E for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so1039458qyk.5 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:15:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.140.146 with SMTP id i18mr930579qau.33.1309378527250; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:15:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (nikula.org [92.243.24.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u15sm1156352qcq.24.2011.06.29.13.15.24 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Jani Nikula To: Jameson Graef Rollins , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] emacs: Add pseudo saved search to match mail that no saved search matches In-Reply-To: <87liwkxxfm.fsf@servo.factory.finestructure.net> References: <87liwkxxfm.fsf@servo.factory.finestructure.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5-232-g917e874 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:15:22 +0000 Message-ID: <87y60kv1gl.fsf@nikula.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 20:15:30 -0000 On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:14:05 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: Non-text part: multipart/signed > 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? Hi, I didn't add the customization specifically to customize the name, but rather to be able to switch the feature on/off. I felt that people might want to customize that. And while at it, customizing the name in the same variable seemed like a good idea. It's probably not desirable to collide with whatever search/tag names people might use. So to clarify, do you prefer having on/off switches, or just enabling this without customization at all? Personally I'd shy away from the latter, but I guess it depends on how useful vs. distracting people find this. > Customization is great, but if there's too much the code and > customization UI become overly cluttered and hard to parse. Agreed. Jani