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

diff --git a/91/859794e6a01ebe23c45000e018bd80d8d5554a b/91/859794e6a01ebe23c45000e018bd80d8d5554a
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..66282d2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/91/859794e6a01ebe23c45000e018bd80d8d5554a
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+Return-Path: <bremner@unb.ca>\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 BE6D1431FB6\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 19:10:03 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: 0\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none]\r
+       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 7+VVHBuLKWQ6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Tue,  3 Apr 2012 19:10:02 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from tesseract.cs.unb.ca (tesseract.cs.unb.ca [131.202.240.238])\r
+       (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+       (No client certificate requested)\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A596431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue,  3 Apr 2012 19:10:02 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from fctnnbsc30w-142166230117.dhcp-dynamic.fibreop.nb.bellaliant.net\r
+       ([142.166.230.117] helo=zancas.localnet)\r
+       by tesseract.cs.unb.ca with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)\r
+       (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bremner@unb.ca>)\r
+       id 1SFFfV-000826-75; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:09:57 -0300\r
+Received: from bremner by zancas.localnet with local (Exim 4.77)\r
+       (envelope-from <bremner@unb.ca>)\r
+       id 1SFFfP-00049v-V5; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:09:47 -0300\r
+From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>\r
+To: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,\r
+       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: <87wr5w2zv5.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\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
+       <87wr5w2zv5.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>User-Agent:\r
+       Notmuch/0.12+70~g46e73fe (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:09:47 -0300\r
+Message-ID: <87bon82qok.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Spam_bar: -\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: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 02:10:04 -0000\r
+\r
+Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> writes:\r
+\r
+> There's no point in adding and initial flag to the beginning of the\r
+> line to specify the command to execute if you have no intention of\r
+> ever supporting other commands. \r
+\r
+My thinking was that it was useful for the disk format to have a bit\r
+more information in it so that we could more easily change the interface\r
+in an upwardly compatible way. If at some point in the future we do have\r
+more general batch command processing, it would be nice not have to\r
+change the file format again, particularly for dump files.\r
+\r
+> Ultimately, I think this patch series suffers from being\r
+> simultaneously too close to existing functionality (restore),\r
+\r
+Well, as Jani mentioned there is a fair amount of code overlap with an\r
+in-progress improved dump/restore facility.\r
+\r
+> yet tantalizingly close to a much more generally useful concept of\r
+> batch command processing.\r
+\r
+Well, opinions seem to differ about how close we are to that in terms of\r
+real code, but I think it is worth thinking about as we define file\r
+formats.\r
+\r
+d\r
+\r