From: Mark Walters Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:14:30 +0000 (+0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] man: clarify search --exclude documentation X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=8c0de409fa81104819304c5ec3b02c77e62fa905;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: [PATCH 4/8] man: clarify search --exclude documentation --- diff --git a/d6/0053d73eb6cb020919d9cb27211ede1a0a9402 b/d6/0053d73eb6cb020919d9cb27211ede1a0a9402 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4c69444e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/d6/0053d73eb6cb020919d9cb27211ede1a0a9402 @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +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 D6C83431FBC + for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:14:36 -0700 (PDT) +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 M66miqWfcTr0 for ; + Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:14:36 -0700 (PDT) +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 2B1D9431FAF + for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:14:36 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) + by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1SiKYB-0001h1-P4; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:14:32 +0100 +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 1SiKYB-00024I-GC; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:14:31 +0100 +From: Mark Walters +To: Peter Wang +Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] man: clarify search --exclude documentation +In-Reply-To: <20120623120244.GB2330@hili.localdomain> +References: <1340198947-29370-1-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com> + <1340198947-29370-5-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com> + <87ehp93fx6.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> + <20120623120244.GB2330@hili.localdomain> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+63~g548a9bf (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 + (i486-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:14:30 +0100 +Message-ID: <87395mbiuh.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: c9d7283d822c6e756d882d29b48e1f14 (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 +Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +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: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:14:37 -0000 + +Peter Wang writes: + +> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:08:05 +0100, Mark Walters wrote: +>> +>> I have reviewed all the new parts of this series (judged as being +>> patches 3-8) and the changes made to my two patches and they are all +>> fine (with one small comment below). Patch 1/8 does need a proper review +>> though as it ended up more intrusive than I would have liked. +>> +>> > +Messages matching search.tag_exclude are called "excluded messages". +>> +>> My one comment is that this is not quite true if the corresponding tag +>> is in the query. Since you are defining the term it would be nice to +>> mention that, but I can't see a clean wording. +> +> How about: +> +> A message is called "excluded" if it matches at least one tag +> in search.tag_exclude that does not appear explicitly in the search +> terms. + +I think this wording is excellent (and prefer it to the less dense wording). + +Best wishes + +Mark + +> Or less densely: +> +> Let "excluded tags" be the set of tags listed in search.tag_exclude, +> minus any tags which appear explicitly in the search terms. +> A message is an "excluded message" if it matches one or more +> excluded tags. +> +> Peter