From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC386DE012F for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:57:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.017 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UBqTkRowV1aT for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A653F6DE0127 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1apmdg-0003LR-28; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:57:08 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 26271 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:56:57 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Notmuch Mail Subject: Re: thread merge/split proposal In-Reply-To: <87egabu5ta.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <87mvp9uwi4.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87k2kdutao.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <878u0l8uyv.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87egabu5ta.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+99~gd93d377 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:56:57 -0300 Message-ID: <8737qr7ig6.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:57:07 -0000 Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > I'm not sure what you mean by "signed" here (cryptographically signed? > a term named "signed"? the idea that the term could be either positive > or negative?), but i think your proposal is that we could have a > "reference" term with a value of "+foo@example.com" or > "-foo@example.com", instead of having a "join" term with value > "foo@example.com" and a "split" term with value "foo@example.com" I was thinking mostly in terms of the UI. I think % notmuch reference +id1 -id2 $QUERY goes well with the tag interface. > I'm not sure i see much of a difference between > > a) introduce two new term types, "join" and "split", with unsigned > values > and > > b) introduce one new term type, "reference" with signed values Yeah, it's an implimentation detail, not clear to me that it matters. > both (a) and (b) complicate syncing solutions, but my original proposal > of: > > c) just introduce a new term type "join" with unsigned value I just meant it isn't representable as folders, like tags are (not well, but *shrug*). > is easy to sync, i think; i was going for the low-hanging fruit, and > trying to not let it get caught up on the more-fully-featured > arbitrary-split use case, though i understand the appeal of the generic > approach. I'm a bit worried about UI proliferation with notmuch-join, notmuch-unjoin now and maybe notmuch-split, notmuch-unsplit later. I'd be fine with a more generic command with parts perhaps unimplimented. > So adding an explicit "join" document term (and figuring out how to > represent it in "notmuch dump" and "notmuch restore") would be a strict > improvement over the current situation, right? Making things generic in the right way will be less work in the long run, I think. For example, if we had thought about more general terms attached to a message in the last revision of dump/restore, we'd be done now.