To: Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,
	Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove message archiving from show-advance-and-archive
In-Reply-To: <87sk4wxm7j.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
References: <87zkz4xnf4.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<874ohctf2h.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net>
	<87sk4wxm7j.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.3.1-50-gc535d0a (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
From: David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:36:53 +0100
Message-ID: <87wru8rze2.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:25:04 -0400, Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure=
.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:12:54 +0100, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:49:43 -0400, Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestruct=
ure.net> wrote:
> > > The function to advance through threads with the space bar is useful.
> > > However, the current implementation also archives messages.  The idea
> > > of archiving a message should not be intertwined with the processes of
> > > advancing through messages to read them.  Archiving in general should
> > > be a separate operation that one does explicitly.  This patch just
> > > renames the advance function "notmuch-show-advance", and removes the
> > > archiving of a thread when the end of the thread is reached.
> >=20
> > This is great, but what if I want the current behaviour?
>=20
> Well, you could do like I do now, and write a function that does what
> you want and bind it to whatever key you want.  But I really don't think
> the current behavior should be the default.

I'm not overly worried about the default behaviour, just with what
behaviour is easily available.

> The current behavior completely mixes the meaning of "unread" and
> "inbox".  If there is no difference between the meaning of those tags,
> then why have separate tags for them?

They are clearly different. If I read a thread with 'space' the 'unread'
tag is removed from the messages as I pass them by. I can then 'q' from
the thread and the messages are not archived ('inbox' is not removed),
but they are no longer 'unread'.

> I think we've done some good work in making the "unread" tag correspond
> reasonably well to actually viewing a message.  We have lots of good
> automatic removal of that tag when messages are viewed.  But I really
> feel strongly that "unread" is the *only* tag that we should be handling
> in an automated way like that.  We should really leave it to the user to
> handle all other tags explicitly how they see fit.  I certainly don't
> want every message I read automatically removed from my inbox.
>=20
> If you feel really strongly about this in the other direction, I would
> like to understand why.  If we can't resolve, then maybe a vote?

Maybe you could submit a patch which allows a user to choose the
behaviour with a customisation variable? (Though I'd expect the value of
that variable to preserve backward compatible behaviour until Carl says
otherwise.)

dme.
=2D-=20
David Edmondson, http://dme.org

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkwPtRYACgkQaezQq/BJZRZkMQCfU/OvnptzjRdkNXuPBcy2QpRx
Tf0AmwUjqJgJxVARCHG8HzQy5blKOykg
=tOlp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--