--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <dme@dme.org>\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 354FD4196F0\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:36:42 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.89\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01]\r
+ autolearn=ham\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 BBJ9a9bDZp72 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:36:31 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com\r
+ [74.125.82.53]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C13431FC1 for\r
+ <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:36:31 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by wwb39 with SMTP id 39so3991284wwb.26\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:36:30 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by 10.227.69.204 with SMTP id a12mr2196841wbj.153.1276097789726;\r
+ Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:36:29 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from ut.hh.sledj.net (gmp-ea-fw-1b.sun.com [192.18.8.1])\r
+ by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u36sm56745968wbv.0.2010.06.09.08.36.25\r
+ (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);\r
+ Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:36:26 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by ut.hh.sledj.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)\r
+ id 49708594015; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 16:36:57 +0100 (BST)\r
+To: Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,\r
+ Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove message archiving from show-advance-and-archive\r
+In-Reply-To: <87sk4wxm7j.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+References: <87zkz4xnf4.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+ <874ohctf2h.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net>\r
+ <87sk4wxm7j.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.3.1-50-gc535d0a (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+From: David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>\r
+Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:36:53 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <87wru8rze2.fsf@ut.hh.sledj.net>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
+ micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"\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: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:36:42 -0000\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\r
+\r
+On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:25:04 -0400, Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure=\r
+.net> wrote:\r
+> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:12:54 +0100, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:\r
+> > On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:49:43 -0400, Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestruct=\r
+ure.net> wrote:\r
+> > > The function to advance through threads with the space bar is useful.\r
+> > > However, the current implementation also archives messages. The idea\r
+> > > of archiving a message should not be intertwined with the processes of\r
+> > > advancing through messages to read them. Archiving in general should\r
+> > > be a separate operation that one does explicitly. This patch just\r
+> > > renames the advance function "notmuch-show-advance", and removes the\r
+> > > archiving of a thread when the end of the thread is reached.\r
+> >=20\r
+> > This is great, but what if I want the current behaviour?\r
+>=20\r
+> Well, you could do like I do now, and write a function that does what\r
+> you want and bind it to whatever key you want. But I really don't think\r
+> the current behavior should be the default.\r
+\r
+I'm not overly worried about the default behaviour, just with what\r
+behaviour is easily available.\r
+\r
+> The current behavior completely mixes the meaning of "unread" and\r
+> "inbox". If there is no difference between the meaning of those tags,\r
+> then why have separate tags for them?\r
+\r
+They are clearly different. If I read a thread with 'space' the 'unread'\r
+tag is removed from the messages as I pass them by. I can then 'q' from\r
+the thread and the messages are not archived ('inbox' is not removed),\r
+but they are no longer 'unread'.\r
+\r
+> I think we've done some good work in making the "unread" tag correspond\r
+> reasonably well to actually viewing a message. We have lots of good\r
+> automatic removal of that tag when messages are viewed. But I really\r
+> feel strongly that "unread" is the *only* tag that we should be handling\r
+> in an automated way like that. We should really leave it to the user to\r
+> handle all other tags explicitly how they see fit. I certainly don't\r
+> want every message I read automatically removed from my inbox.\r
+>=20\r
+> If you feel really strongly about this in the other direction, I would\r
+> like to understand why. If we can't resolve, then maybe a vote?\r
+\r
+Maybe you could submit a patch which allows a user to choose the\r
+behaviour with a customisation variable? (Though I'd expect the value of\r
+that variable to preserve backward compatible behaviour until Carl says\r
+otherwise.)\r
+\r
+dme.\r
+=2D-=20\r
+David Edmondson, http://dme.org\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
+\r
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)\r
+\r
+iEYEARECAAYFAkwPtRYACgkQaezQq/BJZRZkMQCfU/OvnptzjRdkNXuPBcy2QpRx\r
+Tf0AmwUjqJgJxVARCHG8HzQy5blKOykg\r
+=tOlp\r
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+--=-=-=--\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff