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 0386B431FBC; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:01:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org 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 ryftmSy2auqD; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:01:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FBDD431FAE; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:01:10 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Worth To: Jed Brown , notmuch@notmuchmail.org In-Reply-To: <87y6lx4cfr.fsf@59A2.org> References: <1258920736-14205-1-git-send-email-jed@59A2.org> <87ocmtg9ni.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87y6lx4cfr.fsf@59A2.org> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:00:57 -0800 Message-ID: <87pr75q9va.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH] New function notmuch-search-operate-all: operate on all messages in the current query. X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:01:12 -0000 On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:07:20 +0100, Jed Brown wrote: > > Second, since we're in the search view which shows threads, we should > > really be operating on threads. But this tag command won't work like the > > '+' and '-' commands in this buffer. Those commands will add/remove a > > tag to/from every message in the thread[*]. The new '*' command, however > > will only be changing tags on messages that match the query. > > I'm not convinced that we want to operate on the entire thread. > Applying the tag only to the matched messages is enough to find the > thread, and it may really be desirable to only have it applied to > certain messages in the thread. For example, I might have constructed > an elaborate query to find five messages, including a couple that are > burried in 100-message threads in which case I would definitely not want > to tag entire threads. That's a legitimate point. But my point is that whatever behavior we choose here, I want the commands that operate on a single thread (+, -, a) to operate exactly the same as the command that operates on all threads (*). Having these behave subtly different, (as in the current patch) is going to lead to confusion on the part of the user. So, tagging only matching messages could make a lot of sense. If so, let's make the operations on single threads work the same. The race-condition issues apply to both operations, so I won't make the current patch block on resolving those. -Carl