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

diff --git a/89/54793168fd82fc0618dab7d50f93dd5f190916 b/89/54793168fd82fc0618dab7d50f93dd5f190916
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..67c329a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/89/54793168fd82fc0618dab7d50f93dd5f190916
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+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 94E55431FB6\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 15:51:33 -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 N8cOaYIDJDts for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Tue,  3 Apr 2012 15:51:33 -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 F35D8431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 15:51:32 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from earth-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by earth-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D65266E012C;\r
+       Tue,  3 Apr 2012 15:51:32 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on earth-doxen by amavisd-new\r
+Received: from finestructure.net (gwave-107.ligo.caltech.edu\r
+ [131.215.114.107])    (Authenticated sender: jrollins)        by earth-doxen-submit\r
+ (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776EC66E0124; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 15:51:28 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)\r
+       id 58D97888; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 15:51:28 -0700 (PDT)\r
+From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] cli: add support for batch tagging operations to\r
+       "notmuch tag"\r
+In-Reply-To: <87pqbpxm2c.fsf@nikula.org>\r
+References: <cover.1333231401.git.jani@nikula.org>\r
+       <f360a40bed50208d146aee8b06946b1b8315e818.1333231401.git.jani@nikula.org>\r
+       <87ty123tpc.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+       <87aa2tc22z.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+       <87iphh50hz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+       <CAB+hUn_J9oOmbWaQ+_2yGG6i6ecDXbfJWYbpaYx_kbSnAH+EcA@mail.gmail.com>\r
+       <87fwcl4yr8.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+       <CAB+hUn-5yB15na2kFMZOjOEujKQTWHiefvgQYsT4Zi3UOzKwQw@mail.gmail.com>\r
+       <87d37p4xor.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+       <87pqbpxm2c.fsf@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: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:51:26 -0700\r
+Message-ID: <87wr5w2zv5.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
+       micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"\r
+Cc: Notmuch Mail <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: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:51:34 -0000\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+\r
+On Tue, Apr 03 2012, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:\r
+> Yes, it's more flexible, but what are the real benefits of such\r
+> flexibility? What other commands than tag/restore would truly benefit\r
+> from this? I might add that nobody has asked for such flexibility.\r
+\r
+But I do believe it was your patch that introduced the idea of batch\r
+processing of other commands to begin with.  I think you're just turning\r
+my original question to you back on me.  There's no point in adding and\r
+initial flag to the beginning of the line to specify the command to\r
+execute if you have no intention of ever supporting other commands.  Or\r
+vice versa, if you ultimately want to support multiple commands then the\r
+place to do it is in the top level interface, and not in one of the\r
+subcommands.\r
+\r
+Ultimately, I think this patch series suffers from being simultaneously\r
+too close to existing functionality (restore), yet tantalizingly close\r
+to a much more generally useful concept of batch command processing.  I\r
+would rather see it go one way or the other rather than add something\r
+fairly redundant in the middle.\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
+iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPe37uAAoJEO00zqvie6q8CcsP/jRE8/1GrRi22D6OpIjC1izQ\r
+ZnYbrDglAxlS3LHzDZovntJowusbyg1in3MBeLiq/DGS0dNj0hWF4IaaVJ2cz1ph\r
+aj08vCiR0q0tpMAG+J09o8dEp5kJlwzQQtstTrxiamCzdEjgRKha5rQcvsf3lFDw\r
+PKO/sDZRo/reUU4PzXQRsDUkhVCJSiq4fxnzBj+eO5aBrmJxSHFL9rhk6UFoT2Lq\r
+Su7fVR9PnDJ0KodRSQKF/7R/TUoBZEUwv88wUbFTM2WCqqZ6vgEYpIOZZOIsR9OQ\r
+0Eyp9PuhjKG03bKyzdpmN2z8YV7nw3W+MJKRBQep9g/MgkzbiV40kXzUe05nTlw8\r
+hmnt+HKL5PmdAI3R76B5otP9+ipunkAYz7PpcG4AX/raZVCCayJ33SfSCy9cdcu4\r
+bvAF8D7oOCpn+buB4x+VvBjWNi09hPUo4MxNPtWv95yZBBblh6vSdgS6Y3SdNMQg\r
+qIS2TanZfJqMiI7TY8UvpNxEeHScQQi/7EVdcOpvgoCW5vicLI5PZpkvAz2gi4u8\r
+8Srx+t8Ycoq8sFaPgflT5brDDI6txu9pz4vz/2qcPeZb+/AvamQ+NqkDB/gcZlYO\r
+qiJZzGy72aK/8G2YCqetChZhA3biX3h0YxYZm888fwsLLB/40lYm7dNKn2JWR/BN\r
+ipPqDbV9zcvFDeOLWxj2\r
+=EbJM\r
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+--=-=-=--\r