Re: [PATCH 6/8] cli: add support for batch tagging operations to "notmuch tag"

diff --git a/4b/68a34f63ae0d3ca61d67b40bdf5861f4361b28 b/4b/68a34f63ae0d3ca61d67b40bdf5861f4361b28
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..16a9191
--- /dev/null
+++ b/4b/68a34f63ae0d3ca61d67b40bdf5861f4361b28
@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+Return-Path: <jrollins@finestructure.net>\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 8A321431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon,  2 Apr 2012 10:52:07 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -2.29\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] 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 OEdfttYPbLKM for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Mon,  2 Apr 2012 10:52:07 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu\r
+       [131.215.239.19])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA03A431FBC\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon,  2 Apr 2012 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from fire-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by fire-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA6D2E50D7B;\r
+       Mon,  2 Apr 2012 10:52:04 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on fire-doxen by amavisd-new\r
+Received: from finestructure.net (gwave-213.ligo.caltech.edu\r
+ [131.215.114.213])    (Authenticated sender: jrollins)        by fire-doxen-submit\r
+ (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5362E50DD3; Mon,  2 Apr 2012 10:51:58 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)\r
+       id 1898C89A; Mon,  2 Apr 2012 10:51:58 -0700 (PDT)\r
+From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] cli: add support for batch tagging operations to\r
+       "notmuch tag"\r
+In-Reply-To:\r
+ <f360a40bed50208d146aee8b06946b1b8315e818.1333231401.git.jani@nikula.org>\r
+References: <cover.1333231401.git.jani@nikula.org>\r
+       <f360a40bed50208d146aee8b06946b1b8315e818.1333231401.git.jani@nikula.org>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12+87~g3c4c85f (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:51:55 -0700\r
+Message-ID: <87wr5y3ttw.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
+       micalg=pgp-sha256; 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: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:52:07 -0000\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+\r
+On Sat, Mar 31 2012, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:\r
+> Add support for batch tagging operations through stdin to "notmuch\r
+> tag". This can be enabled with the new --stdin command line option to\r
+> "notmuch new". The input must consist of lines of the format:\r
+>\r
+> T +<tag>|-<tag> [...] [--] <search-terms>\r
+\r
+Hey, Jani.  I can understand why you're going for this form, since it\r
+mimics the command line arguments for tag and you want to be able to tag\r
+for arbitrary searches, but I must say that I find it unappealing that\r
+this functionality is *so* similar to that of notmuch restore, but the\r
+file format is totally different.  Can't we unify all of this in a\r
+better way?\r
+\r
+This patch series seems to beg that we actually just unify the tag and\r
+restore functions in to one thing.  They're really just doing the same\r
+thing.  If we extended restore to accept a search-term instead of a\r
+message id they would in fact be identical.\r
+\r
+The more I think about it the more it makes sense to me that we just\r
+merge tag and restore, and extend the input file format to be able to\r
+accept search terms.  It just doesn't make sense to have these two\r
+interfaces that do basically the exact same thing but in a slightly\r
+divergent way.\r
+\r
+jamie.\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
+\r
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)\r
+\r
+iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPeec7AAoJEO00zqvie6q8oIEP/2UsIOwTOJXFf2TP6OBC3Iu2\r
+t/JIL0wLUQHQgtV4JyFieSZrB9UdDRRxdFTd2vYbW4AJXVBDNBKF6841qliGnKGO\r
+P0BbECbHcyXIphnMbKIHyXSWRZBvLp2zQImJ+D3qz/BMEjXSDI5rX8kiDSeqcTW+\r
+DKyEE8Xo4ySN8R4+UK1ARKhJjkJIU9A1kxmqrx85cJRzXIfMTDeW2ej2GUzWaZVa\r
+IgCr/uBQ7DLn1WqgaF73eU8l+dG+OUJXnrnGjQHRklZ0ci6M/gLNpT4biq/2bZpp\r
+jp/bIsT7HGcMSYBTvXxEjU8zynGBwmcJBWTvX54Z7vphaj+XhR+BTez4Jot4d/EH\r
+W+toJvEv40Hek5PHc++uyyGxbR4IRAZ4B90UiHAoiRyjcCKoThhHDf/BaGEgJgsS\r
+2KcOoZE2t+3gsd8mcbaAs9v14T0OLo95jT8BKouLdGW7Z6gF/IcEMlm77PW2OBmv\r
+5cu0nThQ/vxFzcoVIvQ5ueeV4rJhVXa7BUTTsxTAb2V3qX4jIjxhh166a45NLH+r\r
+jJex0VEr06bLwL9hvZv/5rpZ6zu9BoufvOXON1gal168tZg5U3UCdo+iPSaf8MoB\r
+uEYe5Tcdyv8OI8cogixVfQlQG1ewKBaf+WRz9fY/x5H9Id7DoRcvhv41lEYOqTPB\r
+xY8zVEVVIiSeGOq6K+mF\r
+=RF/P\r
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+--=-=-=--\r