notmuch-tag-jump for multiple threads

notmuch-tag-jump for multiple threads

[Sebastian Poeplau]

Hi all,

I'm wondering which workflow people use for this situation that comes up
frequently for me: I have a search that gives me a bunch of threads, say
new messages from a mailing list, and then I go over them, possibly
reading some threads in detail and skipping over others. Afterwards, I
would like to apply some tag changes to all threads, like "-unread" or
"+archived". So far, the two ways I've found to do so in the search view
are '*' (`notmuch-search-tag-all') and typing the tag change in the
completing read, or marking the entire buffer followed by 'k'
(`notmuch-tag-jump') and the shortcut for my change. It feels as if
something like 'K' would be nice, offering the same jump menu like 'k'
but applying the change to all displayed messages.

What is your take? Do you ever encounter the same situation? I would
give the implementation a try but wanted to make sure first that I'm not
missing anything.

Cheers,
Sebastian

Re: notmuch-tag-jump for multiple threads

[David Bremner]

Sebastian Poeplau <sebastian.poeplau@eurecom.fr> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm wondering which workflow people use for this situation that comes up
> frequently for me: I have a search that gives me a bunch of threads, say
> new messages from a mailing list, and then I go over them, possibly
> reading some threads in detail and skipping over others. Afterwards, I
> would like to apply some tag changes to all threads, like "-unread" or
> "+archived". So far, the two ways I've found to do so in the search view
> are '*' (`notmuch-search-tag-all') and typing the tag change in the
> completing read, or marking the entire buffer followed by 'k'
> (`notmuch-tag-jump') and the shortcut for my change. It feels as if
> something like 'K' would be nice, offering the same jump menu like 'k'
> but applying the change to all displayed messages.
>
> What is your take? Do you ever encounter the same situation? I would
> give the implementation a try but wanted to make sure first that I'm not
> missing anything.

I tend to use '*' for those situations, but that might be because
tag-jump was added later. Your proposal sounds ok, as long as it re-uses
most of the tag-jump code.

On a semi-related note I sometimes miss the
ability to mark a set of non-contiguous threads / messages for action
(like 'm' in dired). 

Re: notmuch-tag-jump for multiple threads

[Sebastian Poeplau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 510 bytes --]

> On a semi-related note I sometimes miss the
> ability to mark a set of non-contiguous threads / messages for action
> (like 'm' in dired). 

That would probably the most general way to go. Then one could also
build the equivalent of dired's '% m' and '% g' to mark based on some
sort of query. However, it would require reconsidering all existing
commands in the context of marks, wouldn't it? For example, what would
happen if I pressed 'RET' in the search view while multiple threads are
marked?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]