From eaf74c9e4fec3d8672bbc8f0b307b1932c726e95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Walters Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:29:19 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] emacs-show: open excluded matches if no other matches --- 3f/76891a38cd494db43d21d6b3c19d2ebba6184d | 159 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 159 insertions(+) create mode 100644 3f/76891a38cd494db43d21d6b3c19d2ebba6184d diff --git a/3f/76891a38cd494db43d21d6b3c19d2ebba6184d b/3f/76891a38cd494db43d21d6b3c19d2ebba6184d new file mode 100644 index 000000000..87200c95c --- /dev/null +++ b/3f/76891a38cd494db43d21d6b3c19d2ebba6184d @@ -0,0 +1,159 @@ +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 4E3E7431FAF + for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:29:10 -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 BY87sy-FVfvp for ; + Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:29:08 -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 9F103431FAE + for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:29:08 -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 1SIcoP-0005IA-MN; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:29:02 +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 1SIcoP-0007ik-70; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:29:01 +0100 +From: Mark Walters +To: Jani Nikula , Tomi Ollila , + Jameson Graef Rollins , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: [PATCH] emacs-show: open excluded matches if no other matches +In-Reply-To: <87k41kj9g6.fsf@nikula.org> +References: <1331836090-30560-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> + <8762d44vkv.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + <87k41kj9g6.fsf@nikula.org> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12+110~gbc97b4a (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:29:19 +0100 +Message-ID: <87fwc80ykw.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: 07cb8ff1279e44b1bf2690591dd4169e (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 +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, 13 Apr 2012 09:29:10 -0000 + +On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Jani Nikula wrote: +> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:20:52 +0300, Tomi Ollila wrote: +>> On Thu, Apr 12 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: +>> +>> > On Thu, Mar 15 2012, Mark Walters wrote: +>> >> Currently emacs show does not open matching but excluded +>> >> messages. This is normally the desired behaviour but is probably not +>> >> ideal if only excluded messages match. This patch opens all the +>> >> matching (necessarily excluded) messages in this case and goes to the +>> >> first one. +>> > +>> > Hi, Mark. I have tested this patch and it LGTM. I think this is the +>> > behavior we want, since it's no fun to open up a show buffer and have +>> > all messages in the thread closed. That doesn't make much sense. +>> +>> I disagree: If I open up a show buffer I'd like to have all messages +>> in the thread closed if search terms do not match. But that is my +>> opinion and inconsistent with current behaviour. +>> +>> (Therefore I already +1:d this patch) +>> +>> An example: I have thread of 100 messages and 1 of those is unread. +>> Search terms is tag:unread. I enter the thread: 99 messages closed +>> and this one open. Now unread is automatically removed. If I go back +>> to search view (by pressing q) and re-choose the same thread, +>> current behaviour is to open all 100 messages. I'd like to see all +>> 100 messages closed. +> +> IIUC this would still show all messages closed. Messages that don't +> match will be closed. The change is that if there are messages that +> match, but all of them are excluded, then open the messages anyway. + +This patch does not affect the behaviour in this case, but the code +existing code does expand all messages in a thread if none match (the +use of basic-args and args in notmuch-show-build-buffer). + +> In your example, only if you have *another* message that is both +> tag:unread and tag:deleted (or some other excluded tag) it would show up +> the second time you enter show view. +> +> I actually think I'd still want the above to show all messages closed, +> unless the excluded tag was explicitly specified in the search. The idea +> of exclusions is to reduce "noise" in the view, why open them? If you +> have those 100 messages in a thread, and you want to see the interesting +> (i.e. non-excluded) messages, I'd rather see 0 open if 0 are +> interesting, instead of 100 non-interesting if they are all excluded. + +I think that is entirely plausible as a way to go (though I would also +be happy with the behaviour after this patch). But I think that should +be a subsequent patch because to be consistent it would have to change +the existing behaviour for no matches (and no excludes) to be all closed. + +> Perhaps a function to toggle the open/close of excluded messages would +> be a better idea. + +That might be useful regardless. I could add a function to do this, +which could be called by the above patch if we want the behaviour it +introduces. Do you think that is worth doing? + +> But then I don't use exclusions ATM, so maybe I just +> don't understand, and won't be affected either way. *shrug*. + +That is one problem: there are lots of potential use cases and its not +clear which of them people will use and which we should encourage. I use +a `bizarre' one: I exclude all of my mailing list mail (including +notmuch) so that it doesn't show up in my personal mail searches. So I +guess I am using the excludes to return to the bad old days of +`folders'. (I am not recommending this to anyone, I partly did it as a +good stress test for the exclude stuff, but it does seem to mostly +work.) + + +Best wishes + +Mark + + + + + + -- 2.26.2