From e5e7cc83a6a75c810f59992de75cbae108b7868c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Wang Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:02:44 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH 4/8] man: clarify search --exclude documentation --- ec/e3ffb19ca85329d1007845bdea9e3c103b445e | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 97 insertions(+) create mode 100644 ec/e3ffb19ca85329d1007845bdea9e3c103b445e diff --git a/ec/e3ffb19ca85329d1007845bdea9e3c103b445e b/ec/e3ffb19ca85329d1007845bdea9e3c103b445e new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fd36b4849 --- /dev/null +++ b/ec/e3ffb19ca85329d1007845bdea9e3c103b445e @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +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 0E22E431FBC + for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:02:54 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.799 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, + FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 MxVpOvbZpoQq for ; + Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:02:53 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com + [209.85.160.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 913C7431FAF + for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:02:53 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by pbbrr13 with SMTP id rr13so5221882pbb.26 + for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:02:51 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references + :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition + :content-transfer-encoding; + bh=6iujrq5REszAjrUqM1dZTX/Q6A5EwjXuj6QnHyGweMo=; + b=bxIdtAq3Reec9Uq/zP0JE9h815tnJ712LpLEppFlliAukXgZYEFavsQ83htCCi5vhH + cPcPUoh8ylx17Q8VWawo8+lSq9WSwnTj/4yb53n/oseQKDh2PLlDmqUyHHknTR2EVIlu + jxyzyucuS8CtV4h3JBjhnkWct99UhL3RFn5gJJgtd5mVCL7rUc5D1gcBIKLQM1B9Cawx + RrhuEEahdEieiP66D3UifrVz8pk72DE+x/dMmTfG3zqgcdGCwP5u0mXvobf3YYWelnkM + PJRWVSyIY/30KcUG7VuAdQ6OafoDmmt6MCWD4gRsiGI41dFU9093rLb49VOdcLSD//LB + vLbg== +Received: by 10.68.130.9 with SMTP id oa9mr15685431pbb.95.1340416971680; + Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:02:51 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from localhost (215.42.233.220.static.exetel.com.au. + [220.233.42.215]) + by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pq5sm838742pbb.30.2012.06.22.19.02.47 + (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); + Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:02:49 -0700 (PDT) +Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:02:44 +1000 +Message-ID: <20120623120244.GB2330@hili.localdomain> +From: Peter Wang +To: Mark Walters +Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] man: clarify search --exclude documentation +In-Reply-To: <87ehp93fx6.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +References: <1340198947-29370-1-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com> + <1340198947-29370-5-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com> + <87ehp93fx6.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Content-Disposition: inline +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit +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 02:02:54 -0000 + +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. + +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 -- 2.26.2