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 F0C2A6DE012F for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:30:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.019] 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 aIuQcet-_0x3 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CFB06DE0159 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CBEDF991; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F22D820072; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:29:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: David Bremner , Notmuch Mail Subject: Re: thread merge/split proposal In-Reply-To: <8737qr7ig6.fsf@zancas.localnet> References: <87mvp9uwi4.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87k2kdutao.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <878u0l8uyv.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87egabu5ta.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <8737qr7ig6.fsf@zancas.localnet> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+124~gbf604e9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:29:54 -0400 Message-ID: <87d1pvsjfx.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> 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 01:30:05 -0000 On Mon 2016-04-11 20:56:57 -0400, David Bremner wrote: > 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 see, yeah, that makes sense. That still doesn't cover the "notmuch unjoin" semantics i'd sketched out earlier, though. that might need to be a different use case. The semantics would be something like: break the selected threads into threads based solely on their References headers (including any manual reference terms) using connected component analysis, restoring the threading to what would be produced on a clean import. maybe "unjoin" is the wrong verb, but i'm open to suggestions. > 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. i see, that makes sense. > 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. right -- we don't even have any version information in the notmuch dump file. what's the right way to approach this? --dkg