--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EADB431FAF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 06:31:53 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.098\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,\r
+ NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id AE3q1EUdB+U4 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Sun, 25 Nov 2012 06:31:53 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])\r
+ (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+ (No client certificate requested)\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAC1A431FAE\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 06:31:52 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])\r
+ by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)\r
+ (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+ id 1TcdFN-0005IS-OZ; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:31:50 +0000\r
+Received: from 93-97-24-31.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.24.31] helo=localhost)\r
+ by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)\r
+ (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+ id 1TcdFN-000037-Eq; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:31:49 +0000\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] API for iterating over all messages in a thread\r
+In-Reply-To: <1353819427-13182-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>\r
+References: <1353819427-13182-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.14+81~g9730584 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:31:53 +0000\r
+Message-ID: <87ehjhkb3a.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 93.97.24.31\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: 16a83e3a07d2e2f1f8cd05b77f6d967f (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8\r
+X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to\r
+ determine if it is\r
+ spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.\r
+ This message scored -1.8 points.\r
+ Summary of the scoring: \r
+ * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,\r
+ * medium trust\r
+ * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]\r
+ * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+ provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+ * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:31:53 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+Hi\r
+\r
+This series looks good to me (I have not reviewed the two bindings\r
+patches). Patch 2 looks like it makes things much easier to follow than\r
+the current code (if I understood the current pointer stuff it\r
+constructs the top-level list by doing pointer stuff to remove all\r
+messages which are replies from the complete message list). Indeed, the\r
+diff is more complicated than the new code!\r
+\r
+On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:\r
+> This series adds a library API for iterating over all messages in a\r
+> thread in sorted order. This is easy for the library to provide and\r
+> difficult to obtain from the current API. Plus, if you don't count\r
+> the code added to the bindings, this series is actually a net\r
+> decrease of 4 lines of code because of simplifications it enables.\r
+>\r
+> Do we want the API to do more? Currently it's very minimal, but I can\r
+> imagine two ways it could be generalized. It could take an argument\r
+> to indicate which message list to return, which could be all messages,\r
+> matched messages, top-level messages, or maybe even unmatched messages\r
+> (possibly all in terms of message flags). It could also take an\r
+> argument indicating the desired sort order. Currently, the caller can\r
+> use existing message flag APIs to distinguish matched and unmatched\r
+> messages and there's a separate function for the top-level messages.\r
+> However, if the API could do all of these things, it would subsume\r
+> various other API functions, such as notmuch_thread_get_*_date.\r
+\r
+I don't know if this is the right API. For the matched message etc I\r
+think using the existing message flag APIs is simple enough. I am not\r
+sure about sort orders though: that looks like it would be much easier\r
+for the caller to have the correct sort by I am not sure what users\r
+would need it.\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+>\r
+> Also, is this the right name for the new API? In particular, if we do\r
+> later want to add a function that returns, say, the list of matched\r
+> messages, we'll have a convention collision with\r
+> notmuch_thread_get_matched_messages, which returns only a count.\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff