--- /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 D9D91429E43\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:29:22 -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 C1YaTMHmWZuS for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:29:19 -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 6C00C429E42\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:29:19 -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 1RxpDi-0007tU-85; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:29:14 +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 1RxpDh-0004ff-Sn; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:29:10 +0000\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,\r
+ notmuch@notmuchmail.org, Austin Clements <amdragon@mit.edu>\r
+Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag\r
+In-Reply-To: <874nurrbdb.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+References: <1329296619-7463-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+ <8739acrnu7.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+ <8739aber9o.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+ <874nurrbdb.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+206~g3b67774 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1\r
+ (i486-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:30:35 +0000\r
+Message-ID: <87aa4jtyac.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: 29ca7d7109ce2fa7ff2234b01ed26e28 (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, 16 Feb 2012 00:29:23 -0000\r
+\r
+On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:16:16 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:\r
+> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:11:15 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:\r
+> > I think the difficulty is that there are lots of annoying corner cases,\r
+> > but if there is a simpler solution that would be great!\r
+> \r
+> I think there is!\r
+> \r
+> > 1) What should notmuch show id:deleted-message-id do? \r
+> > \r
+> > It could return the thread containing the deleted message. If it does\r
+> > return a thread what subject does it assign it? Possibly it could\r
+> > return no messages and the caller would have to call it again with\r
+> > --no-exclude.\r
+> \r
+> "notmuch show id:<excluded-id>" should always return the message\r
+> matching id:<excluded-id> with match=true. In fact, any search that\r
+> references a specific id: should always process the message as if there\r
+> were no excludes at all.\r
+> \r
+> Excluded messages are not directly accessible at the moment, which is\r
+> definitely a bug. Adding the --no-excludes option will help, but I\r
+> still think we should just implement the behavior I outline above.\r
+> \r
+> > 2) Should notmuch search return threads which match but only in excluded\r
+> > messages? \r
+> > \r
+> > If yes then does it sort it based on match or match-not-excluded? If the\r
+> > latter what happens to threads with no match-not-excluded messages? If\r
+> > not then does searching for id:deleted-message return no results? The\r
+> > caller could try with --no-exclude, but then the caller would end up\r
+> > returning the deleted message for search id:deleted-message but not for\r
+> > search id:deleted-message or id:some-other-not-deleted-message.\r
+> \r
+> See the point above. If one of the search terms is an id: then that\r
+> message should be returned matched, as if there were no excludes.\r
+> \r
+> I think this is the right solution, for both search and show:\r
+> \r
+> - excluded messages are just match=false\r
+> \r
+> - searches that reference a specific id: are match=true no matter what\r
+> their exclude status\r
+> \r
+> - searches that reference an excluded tag are match=true\r
+> \r
+> As far as I can see this should "just work", without any existing\r
+> changes to consumers. Anyone see any issues I'm missing?\r
+\r
+So is the following what you are suggesting:\r
+\r
+always return all messages/threads that match the query whether or not\r
+the match is excluded, but only mark the message as a match if it\r
+matches and is not excluded (with some exceptions: e.g., for id: queries\r
+and tag:deleted queries).\r
+\r
+A different way of looking at this is that we revert to the old\r
+pre-exclude behaviour and then implement excludes as a "turn off the\r
+match flag" rather than the current "omit the results".\r
+\r
+That sounds plausible. \r
+\r
+But I am not sure how much simpler it is. Of my patch set patches 1-3\r
+are essentially separate (the --no-exclude bits). \r
+\r
+I think you would need patches 4 and 5 or something similar since we\r
+both need to mark the excluded messages ("excluded" in my case, "not\r
+matched" in your case).\r
+\r
+Patch 6 could be simplified: since in your case the exclude status only\r
+matters on matching messages we have already computed it (although the\r
+exclude information would need to passed to create_thread)\r
+\r
+Patch 7: loses the exclude flag bits (5 lines or so) but the bulk is the\r
+--no-exclude for show.\r
+\r
+Patch 8 man-page stays\r
+\r
+Patch 9 (updating tests) might not be needed since the output is\r
+changing less.\r
+\r
+Patch 10 the "omit" excluded results totally option. What would you do\r
+for notmuch search --output=messages? either it outputs all matching\r
+messages or only those that match and are not excluded. The code can of\r
+course check, but things like --output=tags are more annoying as that is\r
+back into the library code. In any event I think something here is\r
+needed, and in fact any solution here would apply to either version.\r
+\r
+Patch 11: emacs would be a bit simpler in your case.\r
+\r
+However, you would need to special case the id: stuff (which could\r
+probably be done in Austin's code that examines the parsed query for\r
+tags). \r
+\r
+\r
+One possibility would be for my patch to set the match status based on\r
+match flag and not exclude flag, and separately return the whole\r
+flag-set. This might give nicer behaviour for current callers whilst\r
+giving the full information to new callers.\r
+\r
+(This email was mostly written when Austin sent his)\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff