From: Jani Nikula Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:35:51 +0000 (+0200) Subject: Re: [PATCH] TODO: date range queries - check X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=74aa270533ec3dfe947423b5cc43dbdc6cf389d6;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: [PATCH] TODO: date range queries - check --- diff --git a/78/9abbb236a67f13ec5d547cc4cf331d5bfdc8e5 b/78/9abbb236a67f13ec5d547cc4cf331d5bfdc8e5 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b2fe2b394 --- /dev/null +++ b/78/9abbb236a67f13ec5d547cc4cf331d5bfdc8e5 @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +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 209FE431FAF + for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:35:57 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.7 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 sO-W+gJdCnIm for ; + Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:35:56 -0800 (PST) +Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com + [209.85.217.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72D4A431FAE + for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:35:56 -0800 (PST) +Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id ge1so778468lbb.26 + for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:35:55 -0800 (PST) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=google.com; s=20120113; + h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id + :mime-version:content-type:x-gm-message-state; + bh=WNg8/Quy16ju7hpXmTE1fGhYh+bq/CZgIcOg8epiVqE=; + b=PNfIoiSrx2REZGWdEUnxEIRcrn3+G59jfx9eAGpFqXaLRSo6Z45G0pWdbQetdxF7A5 + bSNjLUdBaFwzq2vBMEU6EbmkyKyfJpon+axxJF2WzEv9tBfFfGUzL4VfErVP12B6OE5f + WZgiA/jKbt0pJpXqqmYgpnpoEY3aShSpX+eGBeBVto2T2Umc6g+qEJsa0w3Yqpu/SyJ3 + u/yH0waPL98sE7g9wh429hk7tMUIbeiSRJ9MbHgE1cNjtckupom27A6wMG6CHh5pSIir + FVopSIXtW1yiZ9fDNJh0w/rPT2ymXvXfhLWUIzuOIL+v+hfoSC0pG+npOy5mJBQV5kN7 + XU8Q== +Received: by 10.112.87.104 with SMTP id w8mr3143881lbz.49.1354916154948; + Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:35:54 -0800 (PST) +Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw4-fe51df00-27.dhcp.inet.fi. + [80.223.81.27]) + by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v7sm4003338lbj.13.2012.12.07.13.35.53 + (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:35:54 -0800 (PST) +From: Jani Nikula +To: Jameson Graef Rollins , + David Bremner , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: [PATCH] TODO: date range queries - check +In-Reply-To: <877gothkzw.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +References: <1354833276-6219-1-git-send-email-jani@nikula.org> + <877gouine4.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + <871uf2ukat.fsf@zancas.localnet> + <877gothkzw.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.14+138~g7041c56 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 + (i686-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:35:51 +0200 +Message-ID: <87624dzgso.fsf@nikula.org> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +X-Gm-Message-State: + ALoCoQnGRHKpPVf+yia6L6pu4RASPmnudVGOFH5H8KfjiOLKbID5j0pAusq4KQDj61gdo2+q+0YA +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: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:35:57 -0000 + +On Fri, 07 Dec 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: +> On Fri, Dec 07 2012, David Bremner wrote: +>> Jameson Graef Rollins writes: +>>> Has this TODO really been resolved? Do searches like "since:2009-01-1" +>>> or "until:2009-01-1" really now work? As far as I can tell they don't. +>>> Nor are they documented if they do. +>> +>> For specifying one-ended ranges, I find the current syntax OK-ish. It +>> would be reasonable to formulate a seperate TODO for supporting +>> things like date:2012-12-07 +> +> Yeah, I think this is reasonable. I still think it would be nice to +> have the requested functionality. I'm probably having a visceral +> reaction to the fact that I initially thought the new parser *did* +> support these kinds of searches, and was really confused when I got +> errors. Austin's custom query parser from way back did support this, so +> it is possible. It doesn't hurt anything to continue to list it as a +> desired feature. + +Fine by me. I was just trying to clean up the file a bit, that's +all. The only downside I can think of is potential new users stumbling +on this and thinking we still don't have date queries. *shrug*. + +BR, +Jani.