From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: Patch review/application process
In-Reply-To: <87ehxr77hp.fsf@zancas.localnet>
References: <878vo8kdl2.fsf@gilead.invalid> <87hb2n7w82.fsf@zancas.localnet>
	<87sjm74z36.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<87vcr3ehyg.fsf@convex-new.cs.unb.ca>
	<87ehxr4jom.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<87ehxr77hp.fsf@zancas.localnet>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9+39~g74c9dba (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:43:51 -0700
Message-ID: <8739e74de0.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:22:58 -0300, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> The problem is that "notmuch search foo and not bar" will return all
> threads containing a message satisfying "foo" and a message satisfying=20
> "not bar". This makes=20
>=20
>      notmuch search tag:notmuch::patch and not notmuch::pushed
>=20
> notmuch use.

Actually, I don't think that's true.  Notmuch will only return threads
that contain individual messages that satisfy the given search term.  I
actually just verified this to make sure.

> > Please do *not* remove the ::patch tag.=20=20
>=20
> No, I don't suggest/intend to remove the ::patch tag, only a ::unresolved=
 tag,
> since there seems to be no nice way to search for (not notmuch::resolved).

We could just have a notmuch::resolved tag, which would make that easy.
The we could have additional tags to indicate how it was resolved, if
necessary.

But honestly I really think that for most effectiveness we should keep
the tag space as small as possible.  I think this is going to be
basically impossible, and that things are going to get confusing quickly
(I think this is one of the problems with tagging in general) but I
still think we should try.

jamie.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=AgL2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--