Re: [Patch v2 0/3] emacs: allow show to colour based on tags and flags

diff --git a/bb/7984266977e5748145b1ace73b8b5e393d8e21 b/bb/7984266977e5748145b1ace73b8b5e393d8e21
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..70c1be4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bb/7984266977e5748145b1ace73b8b5e393d8e21
@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
+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 28A7C431FB6\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu,  3 May 2012 22:45:58 -0700 (PDT)\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 r5ZzuiGrHjxU for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Thu,  3 May 2012 22:45:57 -0700 (PDT)\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 4A36A431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu,  3 May 2012 22:45:57 -0700 (PDT)\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 1SQBKw-0005gj-7U; Fri, 04 May 2012 06:45:50 +0100\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 1SQBKv-0006Ck-TZ; Fri, 04 May 2012 06:45:50 +0100\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,\r
+       Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>\r
+Subject: Re: [Patch v2 0/3] emacs: allow show to colour based on tags and\r
+ flags\r
+In-Reply-To: <87397jwhjp.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+References: <1335739697-8501-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+       <20120429230220.GO2704@mit.edu>\r
+       <87397jwhjp.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12+128~g0f26d91 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 06:46:08 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <87txzw1otb.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: 754000c4db4c4d91eec510d39f110fa2 (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
+Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\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: Fri, 04 May 2012 05:45:58 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+On Wed, 02 May 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:\r
+> On Sun, Apr 29 2012, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:\r
+>> I haven't really looked at this series yet, but I do have a quick\r
+>> high-level question.  Why use separate customization variables for the\r
+>> colors in search and show mode?  Wouldn't it make more sense to set\r
+>> the colors just once and use them in both modes?\r
+>\r
+> I thought about this myself as soon as I read the patch.  I think I\r
+> would always want the colors to match, so it would make sense to me to\r
+> set them in one place.\r
+\r
+Hi\r
+\r
+I think both are useful (see my reply to Austin) but having show apply\r
+the faces from notmuch-search first seems a good idea.\r
+\r
+There are a couple of extra reasons why I like the show ones\r
+separate. One is that I like to colour headerlines of matching messages to\r
+highlight them, but in search mode that would highlight every\r
+line. Secondly, I colour some things "negatively" in show mode: for\r
+example I show excluded messages in grey. This negative colouring does\r
+not make sense for search mode because I would only want to grey out\r
+results where all messages were excluded not results where at least one\r
+message is excluded. Of course we don't show entirely excluded threads\r
+in search, but similar comments apply to say the "replied" tag: I could\r
+show those in green (on the basis they are "dealt with") but I would not\r
+want a thread coloured green just because I have replied to one message\r
+in it.\r
+\r
+>\r
+>> BTW, I like how this clearly distinguishes tags and flags.  I wonder\r
+>> if we could transition to flags for some information that's current\r
+>> shoe-horned into tags but actually represents immutable information\r
+>> about a message (attachment, signed, and encrypted or so).\r
+>\r
+> Yes!  As Austin probably remembers, we've discussed this before.  I\r
+> definitely agree that it makes sense to somehow distinguish "immutable"\r
+> information that is a fundamental, unchanging/able property of the\r
+> message, and it might be nice to look ahead to that here.\r
+\r
+In essence I agree: my only concern is can the user search for these\r
+immutable things, and what syntax is used there. \r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r