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 74B1141733F for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:55:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.89 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=ham 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 Wb6jm60q5urt; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yoom.home.cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A5C431FC1; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yoom.home.cworth.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 90B76568E39; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Carl Worth To: Jameson Rollins , David Edmondson , Notmuch Mail Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove message archiving from show-advance-and-archive In-Reply-To: <87hblcxksa.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> References: <87zkz4xnf4.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <874ohctf2h.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net> <87sk4wxm7j.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87wru8rze2.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net> <87hblcxksa.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.3.1-61-ge870437 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:54:57 -0700 Message-ID: <87y6eogkge.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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, 09 Jun 2010 17:55:11 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:55:49 -0400, Jameson Rollins wrote: > I actually submitted this patch because there was noise on #notmuch > about people (including from cworth) not liking the default behavior > where the "inbox" tag is removed by the advance function. For the record, I wrote the current behavior for my own use, so I've been pretty happy with it. But I have seen enough people complain about it that I've been convinced that something is wrong about it. I'm not yet sure what the right answer is. But if we at least have separate commands for separate actions, then hopefully it wouldn't be too difficult for users to combine those actions. When we have one command that does several different things, then it's much harder for users to tweak. I suppose one option here would be a customizable variable that controls what happens when trying to advance "past" the last message, (do nothing, advance to next thread, archive current thread and advance to next thread)? =2DCarl =2D-=20 carl.d.worth@intel.com --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFMD9Vx6JDdNq8qSWgRAuhlAKCLNLi6rl9+4yGVy+J+j/zKypqnCwCdGhWN tBuYAxrzrGLAow86gL9t6hY= =1SZH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--