From: Jameson Graef Rollins Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:55:11 +0000 (+1700) Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] cli: add support for batch tagging operations to "notmuch tag" X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=ad101be6aeb4d83278f082a643af63b71becc4e7;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: [PATCH 6/8] cli: add support for batch tagging operations to "notmuch tag" --- diff --git a/2e/a89dcab896edc2026dfcf7908851b62bb230b2 b/2e/a89dcab896edc2026dfcf7908851b62bb230b2 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b2d359b43 --- /dev/null +++ b/2e/a89dcab896edc2026dfcf7908851b62bb230b2 @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ +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 230EA431FB6 + for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:55:24 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -2.29 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] 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 OXh9a1XWOzPH for ; + Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:55:22 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu + [131.215.239.19]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793F7431FAE + for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:55:22 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from earth-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by earth-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C19E66E0180; + Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:55:18 -0700 (PDT) +X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on earth-doxen by amavisd-new +Received: from finestructure.net (unknown [76.89.193.65]) + (Authenticated sender: jrollins) + by earth-doxen-submit (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF6766E018D; + Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:55:14 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) + id CBF883BC; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:55:13 -0700 (PDT) +From: Jameson Graef Rollins +To: David Bremner , Jani Nikula +Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] cli: add support for batch tagging operations to + "notmuch tag" +In-Reply-To: <87bon82qok.fsf@zancas.localnet> +References: + + <87ty123tpc.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + <87aa2tc22z.fsf@zancas.localnet> + <87iphh50hz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + + <87fwcl4yr8.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + + <87d37p4xor.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + <87pqbpxm2c.fsf@nikula.org> + <87wr5w2zv5.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + <87bon82qok.fsf@zancas.localnet> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12+87~g3c4c85f (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:55:11 -0700 +Message-ID: <87aa2s2aow.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; + micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" +Cc: Notmuch Mail +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: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:55:24 -0000 + +--=-=-= + +On Tue, Apr 03 2012, David Bremner wrote: +> My thinking was that it was useful for the disk format to have a bit +> more information in it so that we could more easily change the interface +> in an upwardly compatible way. If at some point in the future we do have +> more general batch command processing, it would be nice not have to +> change the file format again, particularly for dump files. + +I concede that it's possible to move forward with this idea in a way +that satisfies an immediate need while still being flexible going +forward. + +With that in mind, I think I stand by my suggestion that the form should +match exactly the notmuch subcommand format. Even considering the +technical issues that Jani brought up, I still think it makes the most +sense to imagine generic batch processing handled by the top level +binary. And in that case the most logical format for the input is +probably just that of the CLI arguments. + +Just out of curiosity and for the sake of argument, if we were going to +design a server/batch processor from the ground up would it make sense +to use a format like this, or would we better off opting for some other +more established protocol? + +jamie. + +--=-=-= +Content-Type: application/pgp-signature + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- +Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) + +iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPe/5fAAoJEO00zqvie6q8ZbMP/AkqqaxFBSB/ToWoyGkwMUFC +lPFeurEjR+5Dxqp3TWPAl05z9nDbOxuOF4Y4TDfzBf6CzTasVN5CYh3ng1vbMXWp +YXRqW7p9PSqwemHxATcoURtzwt9iTytH84tY1S4h61baDalqUBNvfVAH5XkJ4Ouy +iha8NGbt2QQQHblcGe4+7Bezun8/U0BpggwrtKARIaoHXp/TGG6NToWCrQ8p6nHk ++uh124noKHEZeY99MI9rNxV7tiVTwoIbokm7b+xp7K0cYMySwEyQ6Q/vMDtnoVdC +2X5foxZbXJjnJRjp+wrZOyOXtsAqR2HS12c/pQaHiZCtPW9xDkVeMVqtAmUDs9tX +KADVH/2pginq3nZAJ8AbLZtMYGWMyRptJC1zPaoouTeLVrQCtu50rSisQaVLn/97 +Vzsuix8HEvyuN1MUmw/2uuTLf7sTBQlrE8q5n3GR5XFMLWQvPqD7LiBsHhR7V6AA +NSyW47WYqPCGF7t6jqddloMopIBk8X3l9PgWqQdMu9dqcUwmy94IZ/zjlBhNApty +Yq4fPahGo1J+3eLT9ZNQFUbiqcNMkoQPcq8W6D88cIU+qdN06DuaYFREAm6F6aAT +n3cWhzY4IMoLTmylroffoVXeetE3tOta9SPO8aJjL96Zk1nzgpAF6Yif7KDY3k/a +wn5bD3C+JYSRnkN+82di +=pvDZ +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- +--=-=-=--