Re: Bulk message tagging

[Mark Anderson <MarkR.Anderson@amd.com>]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:56:48 -0500, Xavier Maillard <xma@gnu.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:51:01 -0600, Mark Anderson <MarkR.Anderson@amd.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I think that '*' is definitely an awesome command, but I wonder if we
> > shouldn't have another command for the notmuch-search buffer which means
> > 'tag all the threads that I can see in this buffer'.
> 
> This is exactly what my initial post asked for. '*' is not
> totally satisfying for me due to the "limitations" you
> exposed. Though It is a good and acceptable workaround for me.
> As said, I just have to pay attention to redo my search query
> before pressing the '*' key.

Another problem I have is that I often _don't_ want to refresh my
search.  Some of my mail processing, while not visible in the search
window, since we don't have a way to refresh tags yet, will remove some of
the current search results from matching the search query.

For example, I like to have notmuch folder definitions with "tag:unread"
in them.  For those search views, once I've looked at any of the mails,
they no longer match the query.  Sometimes I want to refresh the search
so that those mails are no longer visible, sometimed I want to apply an
action on all the visible messages which I've just processed.

When I visit a folder view, what intent do I have?  Am I returning to a
'moment-ago' processing view that was interrupted?  Or am I wanting to
do the search again on the current contents of the database?  I could
easily see mental models that match either way.

I think I read that Carl plans to update the tags in a search view at
some point, without removing threads automatically.

Perhaps there ought to be a way to colorize threads which are displayed
but no longer match the search criterion?

-Mark