From 16c0bee680f6c949c1978b6c0a6b2a4a7160e0dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jameson Graef Rollins Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:46:56 +1600 Subject: [PATCH] Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag --- be/caac0cd556da01bd7a076d15d34788a7999a15 | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+) create mode 100644 be/caac0cd556da01bd7a076d15d34788a7999a15 diff --git a/be/caac0cd556da01bd7a076d15d34788a7999a15 b/be/caac0cd556da01bd7a076d15d34788a7999a15 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0abadf06e --- /dev/null +++ b/be/caac0cd556da01bd7a076d15d34788a7999a15 @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +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 8A30C431E82 + for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:47:08 -0800 (PST) +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 lw34kmUerVBb for ; + Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:47:06 -0800 (PST) +Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu + [131.215.239.19]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B754431E62 + for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:47:06 -0800 (PST) +Received: from fire-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by fire-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D752E50BF8; + Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:47:02 -0800 (PST) +X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on fire-doxen by amavisd-new +Received: from finestructure.net (adsl-76-240-184-246.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net + [76.240.184.246]) (Authenticated sender: jrollins) + by fire-doxen-submit (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE572E50C1B; + Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:46:59 -0800 (PST) +Received: by finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) + id 2DC53436; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:46:59 -0800 (PST) +From: Jameson Graef Rollins +To: Mark Walters , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag +In-Reply-To: <1329296619-7463-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> +References: <1329296619-7463-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+192~g2bb5859 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:46:56 -0800 +Message-ID: <8739acrnu7.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; + micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" +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, 15 Feb 2012 17:47:08 -0000 + +--=-=-= +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:03:28 +0000, Mark Walters wrote: +> The current implementation of exclude-tags does not use excludes in +> notmuch-show.c (and thus not in notmuch-show.el). Thus when selecting=20 +> a thread in the search view claiming one matched message you may get=20 +> several matches in show all but one of which are tagged excluded. + +Hey, Mark. Thanks so much for working on this. This is a very nice +extension to Austin's work. + +> This set moves in a different direction. It returns all the results=20 +> but marks excluded messages with a new flag=20 +> (NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED) and lets the consumer decide what to=20 +> do with them. For example it could start with the message closed in=20 +> emacs show view, it could colour the headerline differently etc. + +I missed some of the previous discussion on this, but rather than add a +new flag, why not just use the existing "match" flag? If the message is +excluded, just mark "match" as "false". I think this is basically all +we really want. If the message is "excluded" include it in returned +threads, but just don't display it. This is in fact exactly what the +"match" flag is currently for, and I can't see any reason not to use it +here. We don't need to add anything new to the show output, and I +believe it will simplify this patch set considerably. + +jamie. + +--=-=-= +Content-Type: application/pgp-signature + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- +Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) + +iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPO++QAAoJEO00zqvie6q8fvYQAJjm1CeemDDxfjsl6HFgocHj +hMzHdc7RfBsV2NhVgya1/jlFbD+WPA1TAhiWSCjC8/BzK2HXK1fGenXlYHtcFGYz +piaSX/W6IjDhY2IMi60R3rxKa63aLvQ7R238od3KZu+M5LWIlV9Ta5RuP/2WzqpE +CmKqhc65PIphaegtzePAjrcP1r6Yjsecg22ZU8k4JBAy11r8nBWB92F+Qlh2cMp5 +rUMRN9AKtvy0afCgQFfnIlBrEdr82Oz0JsjAOSKutNPsIibIQ7PxJvQ8ghSlSIXI +iAsb4qFaCeHmnisDQtIbWvEMT0H2ey5Q5w0qsh7NZ7JcxmAf93qbww5m/LSMQdiX ++qRyQRrGptDzkVp3uT3tssCl8D6p1yus2bDmOk45eTNk53XfhbwSl3/Af2dug1F6 +yFliMlrFt+ZdoLjXQsfYz4gT1HGgL+ys25mw1bbVBJ0KWxtHgW+dcEwTgeNnvexc +0Kc/cxxVMqrS93I56FBvUR2+U4ScJ3NlDchl3dn9M17qG39vFGQly6dfFg+dlQlV +WSCPdDzTqjjuIITAS9vLeq24ZjzUXc9APT1k0YI7jgi+CdmsmHmRrgpaKZH0Z+FU +0Xs3U1vd5APGBqfreugea2YG971o8DofuL96MSscj5op6Sob6fJPKPgARArFw+zn +/PKmwKtGtx9PJxG769P8 +=TvS+ +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- +--=-=-=-- -- 2.26.2