From: Mark Walters Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:30:35 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=26688b534bde49d4ee51b34e2c5a2529d698a4d2;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag --- diff --git a/39/9c2a38718abacf6f9d534b35854dc528d03e10 b/39/9c2a38718abacf6f9d534b35854dc528d03e10 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c52aebd1b --- /dev/null +++ b/39/9c2a38718abacf6f9d534b35854dc528d03e10 @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D91429E43 + for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:29:22 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.098 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled +Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id C1YaTMHmWZuS for ; + Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:29:19 -0800 (PST) +Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C00C429E42 + for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:29:19 -0800 (PST) +Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) + by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1RxpDi-0007tU-85; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:29:14 +0000 +Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223] + helo=localhost) + by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) + (envelope-from ) + id 1RxpDh-0004ff-Sn; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:29:10 +0000 +From: Mark Walters +To: Jameson Graef Rollins , + notmuch@notmuchmail.org, Austin Clements +Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag +In-Reply-To: <874nurrbdb.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +References: <1329296619-7463-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> + <8739acrnu7.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + <8739aber9o.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> + <874nurrbdb.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+206~g3b67774 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1 + (i486-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:30:35 +0000 +Message-ID: <87aa4jtyac.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223 +X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :) +X-QM-Body-MD5: 29ca7d7109ce2fa7ff2234b01ed26e28 (of first 20000 bytes) +X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8 +X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: - +X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to + determine if it is + spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam. + This message scored -1.8 points. + Summary of the scoring: + * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, + * medium trust + * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org] + * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail + provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com) + * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + * domain + * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:29:23 -0000 + +On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:16:16 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: +> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:11:15 +0000, Mark Walters wrote: +> > I think the difficulty is that there are lots of annoying corner cases, +> > but if there is a simpler solution that would be great! +> +> I think there is! +> +> > 1) What should notmuch show id:deleted-message-id do? +> > +> > It could return the thread containing the deleted message. If it does +> > return a thread what subject does it assign it? Possibly it could +> > return no messages and the caller would have to call it again with +> > --no-exclude. +> +> "notmuch show id:" should always return the message +> matching id: with match=true. In fact, any search that +> references a specific id: should always process the message as if there +> were no excludes at all. +> +> Excluded messages are not directly accessible at the moment, which is +> definitely a bug. Adding the --no-excludes option will help, but I +> still think we should just implement the behavior I outline above. +> +> > 2) Should notmuch search return threads which match but only in excluded +> > messages? +> > +> > If yes then does it sort it based on match or match-not-excluded? If the +> > latter what happens to threads with no match-not-excluded messages? If +> > not then does searching for id:deleted-message return no results? The +> > caller could try with --no-exclude, but then the caller would end up +> > returning the deleted message for search id:deleted-message but not for +> > search id:deleted-message or id:some-other-not-deleted-message. +> +> See the point above. If one of the search terms is an id: then that +> message should be returned matched, as if there were no excludes. +> +> I think this is the right solution, for both search and show: +> +> - excluded messages are just match=false +> +> - searches that reference a specific id: are match=true no matter what +> their exclude status +> +> - searches that reference an excluded tag are match=true +> +> As far as I can see this should "just work", without any existing +> changes to consumers. Anyone see any issues I'm missing? + +So is the following what you are suggesting: + +always return all messages/threads that match the query whether or not +the match is excluded, but only mark the message as a match if it +matches and is not excluded (with some exceptions: e.g., for id: queries +and tag:deleted queries). + +A different way of looking at this is that we revert to the old +pre-exclude behaviour and then implement excludes as a "turn off the +match flag" rather than the current "omit the results". + +That sounds plausible. + +But I am not sure how much simpler it is. Of my patch set patches 1-3 +are essentially separate (the --no-exclude bits). + +I think you would need patches 4 and 5 or something similar since we +both need to mark the excluded messages ("excluded" in my case, "not +matched" in your case). + +Patch 6 could be simplified: since in your case the exclude status only +matters on matching messages we have already computed it (although the +exclude information would need to passed to create_thread) + +Patch 7: loses the exclude flag bits (5 lines or so) but the bulk is the +--no-exclude for show. + +Patch 8 man-page stays + +Patch 9 (updating tests) might not be needed since the output is +changing less. + +Patch 10 the "omit" excluded results totally option. What would you do +for notmuch search --output=messages? either it outputs all matching +messages or only those that match and are not excluded. The code can of +course check, but things like --output=tags are more annoying as that is +back into the library code. In any event I think something here is +needed, and in fact any solution here would apply to either version. + +Patch 11: emacs would be a bit simpler in your case. + +However, you would need to special case the id: stuff (which could +probably be done in Austin's code that examines the parsed query for +tags). + + +One possibility would be for my patch to set the match status based on +match flag and not exclude flag, and separately return the whole +flag-set. This might give nicer behaviour for current callers whilst +giving the full information to new callers. + +(This email was mostly written when Austin sent his) + +Best wishes + +Mark