[Patch V4] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag

diff --git a/f9/7373e5e04559311fda91681e73821c65e88dcc b/f9/7373e5e04559311fda91681e73821c65e88dcc
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..4a02a9e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/f9/7373e5e04559311fda91681e73821c65e88dcc
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+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 C8CFE431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu,  2 Feb 2012 09:38:21 -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 Rg+qi13jTiZY for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Thu,  2 Feb 2012 09:38:21 -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 DDD19431FC3\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu,  2 Feb 2012 09:38:20 -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 1Rt0bu-0006Ns-79; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:38:15 +0000\r
+Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]\r
+       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 1Rt0bt-0003Ey-Vj; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:38:14 +0000\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>\r
+Subject: [Patch V4] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+140~gb5e1cf0 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1\r
+       (i486-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:39:22 +0000\r
+Message-ID: <874nv9rv79.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record.  :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: cd18d7160eb5031e5c41a2add3c63924 (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
+       * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay\r
+       *      domain\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: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:38:22 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+Here is the latest version of this patch set. I think I have fixed most\r
+of the problems raised in review but there are some remaining issues\r
+detailed below.\r
+\r
+Changes and queries:\r
+\r
+1) Changed --do-not-exclude option to --no-exclude\r
+\r
+2) The api notmuch_query_set_omit_excluded_messages remains: without it I\r
+can't see how a user can pass the notmuch_messages_t object around which\r
+does not contain the excluded messages. See\r
+id:"87fweusabh.fsf@qmul.ac.uk"\r
+\r
+3) I have introduced a new function notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages\r
+(notmuch_thread_t *thread, unsigned int flag_mask, unsigned int flags)\r
+\r
+which returns the number of messages with the specified flags on\r
+flag_mask. (Note the current NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAGs were nominally the\r
+bit position of the flag rather than the actual bit of the flag. I\r
+changed that. I am not completely happy with the style for this commit\r
+(patch 7/11): any comments gratefully received!\r
+\r
+4) In id:"20120131044352.GZ17991@mit.edu" Austin suggested that I use a\r
+notmuch_mset_messages_t object rather than an notmuch_doc_id_set_t. I\r
+couldn't see how that would work unless the iterator would generate the\r
+excludes in step with the main query. At the moment the doc_id object\r
+just stores a bitmap listing all relevant excluded messages.\r
+\r
+5) If we have a query which overrides the excludes such as "blah and\r
+tag:deleted" should the tag:deleted messages still be marked excluded?\r
+The current implementation does mark them excluded but my preference would\r
+be not to. What do people think?\r
+\r
+6) In id:"20120131050748.GA10844@mit.edu" Austin pointed out that the\r
+sort will be influenced by the excluded messages. I do not think either\r
+of us are sure whether it should be or not so I have left it as is for\r
+the moment.\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r