From: Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org>
To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>,
	Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,
	Xavier Maillard <xma@gnu.org>, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] config: only set search.exclude_tags to "deleted;
 spam;	" during setup
In-Reply-To: <87wr8in7l0.fsf@nikula.org>
References: <1326586654-16840-3-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>
	<1327000744-25463-1-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org>
	<1327000744-25463-4-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org>
	<m2r4yr2xmy.fsf@kcals.intra.maillard.im>
	<874nvnqrgq.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<87ipk3au08.fsf@praet.org> <8739b6opce.fsf@nikula.org>
	<87d3aac0bl.fsf@praet.org> <87wr8in7l0.fsf@nikula.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+113~g5a6e67e (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:42:46 +0100
Message-ID: <87hazksjcp.fsf@praet.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:31:23 +0000, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:03:42 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:22:25 +0000, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:05:27 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org> w=
rote:
> > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:53:41 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins=
@finestructure.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:14:13 +0100, Xavier Maillard <xavier@maill=
ard.im> wrote:
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:19:03 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.=
org> wrote:
> > > > > > > If the 'search.exclude_tags' option is missing from the confi=
g file,
> > > > > > > its value is automatically set to "deleted;spam;".  Taking Po=
LS/DWIM
> > > > > > > into account, this should probably only happen during setup.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > This patch is actually Austin Clements' work:
> > > > > > >   id:"20120117203211.GQ16740@mit.edu"
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > I do not think this is a sane default. As I told it in another =
post. I
> > > > > > do not expect notmuch to skew my search queries not that I spec=
ifically
> > > > > > asked.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Hi, Xavier.  Do you currently mark things as "deleted" or "spam"?=
  If
> > > > > not, this would have no affect on your search results.  If you do=
, do
> > > > > you currently expect those messages to show up in searches?  If s=
o, why
> > > > > did you mark them as "deleted" or "spam" to begin with?
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I agree with your point in principle (ie. I don't generally want =
my
> > > > > searches tampered with behind the scenes) but the issue here is a=
bout
> > > > > messages that have been explicitly tagged as a form of "trash".  =
Trash
> > > > > is by it's nature something you're trying to get rid of.  If you =
wanted
> > > > > to find something in the future, why would you put it in the tras=
h in
> > > > > the first place?
> > > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > You definitely have a point, but then again, who are we to assume t=
hat
> > > > the terms "deleted" and "spam" have the *exact* same meaning for
> > > > everyone?  (also see id:"8739bbo0br.fsf@praet.org")
> > >=20
> > > "deleted" used to be a tag recognized by notmuch, and it used to sync=
 to
> > > the T (trashed) maildir flag. Even if notmuch won't delete any of your
> > > mails now, I don't think you should use "deleted" on messages you want
> > > to see again. Please let's not split hairs about this.
> > >=20
> >=20
> > Agreed, but it might be nice to make a clear distinction between
> > concepts and the actual tags mapped to them.  I'm not suggestion we
> > redefine the term "deleted", but from an internationalization
> > standpoint, we shouldn't prevent users from mapping e.g. "verwijderd",
> > "supprim=C3=A9", "gel=C3=B6scht", ... to the concept "deleted".
> >=20
> > > There really should be a definitive list of tags that are special to
> > > lib/cli/emacs (like "inbox", "unread", "deleted", ...), or are
> > > recommended for specific purposes (like "new" as an intermediate tag
> > > before more sophisticated tagging), to avoid prolonged discussions li=
ke
> > > this.
> > >=20
> >=20
> > A list of recommended tags would definitely be nice, as long as they
> > remain recommendations (as opposed to obligations), especially since
> > there's really no reason to designate certain tags as being "special".
>=20
> Whether there's reason or not, certain tags are special, for a fact, and
> they are not just recommendations. [...]

My mistake.  Thanks for the correction!


> [...] Perhaps one day someone will
> contribute patches to make them configurable, and separate the concepts
> from the actual tags, but in the mean time it will be easier to just
> document them for what they are.
>=20

Agreed.


> BR,
> Jani.


Peace

--=20
Pieter