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 05E60431FB6 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:07:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled 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 d7ZL+kMrJkhd for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C9E9431FAE for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbcuo1 with SMTP id uo1so5525664pbc.26 for ; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:07:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=K0lWuLMCbW08EidSK5qhMzZSCQgtSzrH+awnJPThNpc=; b=UXON5g+cgx+0//PFDEkWirHtlpm7RhjlHZMm3+eOV3m0gt5I9o5QjQIfuzXfD7t3zj YbKMe8vae+K8GyxY3HQaHKENe8lWWMewe/Qy4jcznRD43kj/+nlKeJZIQtpRbugP0vDO RtxZSqI3JZAlaQsR+nTv8ePSkacjEhtF8PmqhLgPNRZA33670EmcQH2bOLYSa252EHPd TWsLWVkxQ443ivyhunldIN5wYzrt37yHVHR6S9/f+0dLBPcKXvMbkJheM3HemAcR6z2F Fzyi8RSQArBaAlRVTVbEeT576qkr7Rm2ssl1ui9L+46UdDFXS/6fV2keH8LDyN/UCGTx d1AA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.202.195 with SMTP id kk3mr23240520pbc.96.1333400858147; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.231.104 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.231.104 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:07:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87iphh50hz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> References: <87ty123tpc.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87aa2tc22z.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87iphh50hz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 00:07:37 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] cli: add support for batch tagging operations to "notmuch tag" From: Jani Nikula To: Jameson Graef Rollins Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15b1077e3c0c04bcb89424 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmPpnoDWPkx8LvRtTcUUgONe0ZOeRYd1+7dVfyh4s33w6TrazmMhv27FexAxVirSJZicLje Cc: Notmuch Mail 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: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:07:40 -0000 --047d7b15b1077e3c0c04bcb89424 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Apr 2, 2012 11:42 PM, "Jameson Graef Rollins" wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 02 2012, David Bremner wrote: > > Jameson Graef Rollins writes: > >> On Sat, Mar 31 2012, Jani Nikula wrote: > >>> Add support for batch tagging operations through stdin to "notmuch > >>> tag". This can be enabled with the new --stdin command line option to > >>> "notmuch new". The input must consist of lines of the format: > >>> > >>> T +|- [...] [--] > >> > > > > I think that's my fault. I was imagining a possible future line-oriented > > notmuch server and having various actions/queries possible. It seems a > > bit blue sky at this point, but it does give extesibility fairly > > cheaply. > > But then why not just make the command explicit, and just have the first > field be "tag"? > > But then I wonder why do we even need any of this at all? Isn't it this > just exactly equivalent to: > > xargs -l notmuch > ?? Batch tagging brings performance and atomicity by opening and closing the db only once. The hex encoding handles insane message ids and tags. Otherwise there should be no difference. Jani. > > jamie. --047d7b15b1077e3c0c04bcb89424 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Apr 2, 2012 11:42 PM, "Jameson Graef Rollins" <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:=
>
> On Mon, Apr 02 2012, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> > Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> writes:
> >> On Sat, Mar 31 2012, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> >>> Add support for batch tagging operations through stdin to= "notmuch
> >>> tag". This can be enabled with the new --stdin comma= nd line option to
> >>> "notmuch new". The input must consist of lines = of the format:
> >>>
> >>> T +<tag>|-<tag> [...] [--] <search-terms&g= t;
> >>
> >
> > I think that's my fault. I was imagining a possible future li= ne-oriented
> > notmuch server and having various actions/queries possible. It se= ems a
> > bit blue sky at this point, but it does give extesibility fairly<= br> > > cheaply.
>
> But then why not just make the command explicit, and just have the fir= st
> field be "tag"?
>
> But then I wonder why do we even need any of this at all? =C2=A0Isn= 9;t it this
> just exactly equivalent to:
>
> xargs -l notmuch <commands.txt
>
> ??

Batch tagging brings performance and atomicity by opening and closing th= e db only once. The hex encoding handles insane message ids and tags. Other= wise there should be no difference.

Jani.

>
> jamie.

--047d7b15b1077e3c0c04bcb89424--