To: Matt Armstrong <marmstrong@google.com>, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>,
 notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: notmuch.el: controlling what does and doesn't get expanded in
 searches
In-Reply-To: <qf57fbw4fx4.fsf@marmstrong-linux.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <qf54m70o7h5.fsf@marmstrong-linux.kir.corp.google.com>
 <87a8gsv787.fsf@nikula.org>
 <qf57fbw4fx4.fsf@marmstrong-linux.kir.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Sender: cworth@cworth.org
From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 12:44:07 -0700
Message-ID: <87r3a4nwu0.fsf@wondoo.home.cworth.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
 micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain

On Thu, Aug 04 2016, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> Yes, I find the query semantics with respect to tags and threads a bit
> confusing at times.  This is not a problem specific to notmuch, as I
> find the same kinds of issues in GMail.  Usually the problem occurs at
> the semantic border between per-message tags and thread-based
> operations.
>
> I can now explain what I am seeing.

Hi Matt,

I haven't been very active on the notmuch mailing list in quite some
time, but I wanted to poke my head in quickly to welcome you and to
thank you for your contribution.

I really like detailed discussions like this about coming up with good
workflows, and trying to figure out how notmuch could better accommodate
those workflows. I think this is one of the most valuable aspects of
notmuch, (that it lets us ask these kinds of questions).

So, please, keep it up!

>  i) notmuch could have an "also expand tags" feature, where thread based
>     results would auto expand matching tags.  I would set this to
>     "unread".

This approach makes a lot of sense to me based on how notmuch.el works.

>  ii) notmuch could have an "expand query" feature, where thread based
>      results would use an entirely different query to decide, within a
>      thread, which messages to expand.  I would set this query to
>      "tag:unread".

This approach would necessarily be quite a bit more complex in the
implementation without much difference in the user-visible behavior. So
I don't think we would want to pursue this.

-Carl

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=enVG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--