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 5C3B76DE0FA5 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.672 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 e-EX-GIAUoAs for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 09:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com (mail-wm0-f68.google.com [74.125.82.68]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 278D06DE0E43 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 09:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id 133so11347207wmq.2 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adirat-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=+H0726FEUKgJ3wYvMgnWYM0h9/ysUIxilbjQfV9eWuY=; b=CyWpqSBVSHkVN3gfIWukUeCG7oELcTxMWj5j3mioi03b7PEAQmzBwCB53CUMVBVzds 8Htl0k6N88VTGgMRxB6qPlqujw/0/7rXmMA27VVHKLd0cb7Odfty6ZmpLBTWNUN3KGh1 520tbu6J7OqICfQhF3UDj7SZm1f4MIp1pruWT+SCFeT+VI4swfXFSFOfnQ6gGv7zOL6U 7iTap8SoobFZHtVKJDw5WNjPR7eDS7edFRtRwHbhnqb0YNJcqbZo8TvXPmCQHiSfVT5Z KsJPw3C8IOEcSfXA0HWDge1W30qfvFMrBajFjaWNTViXrDuLVJP44zjvUapZAyLYqKNn UVGw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=+H0726FEUKgJ3wYvMgnWYM0h9/ysUIxilbjQfV9eWuY=; b=cBcKc9VuKaQjAW8s11c7GtXaSgdHSXMf7LECrHr6rigUCMdDOmFd37victUrEtu3nE Hr1PNZ0MVNOEsCtmgqY7yrCUCoIroh35CNYzfLNa945UbQKSpMm9CnNaRa+xm2g6evF4 LlKcLOBhnllIAKQPE5Bl5UrI8pkmw5OZzepUlMDspFktI4/2HOdJolKpSqtPjDHhw+VV owBr0kXYztbuG3365evrUquti53ZGG96QuKIcp97cDTnt3cU0ublc4V0XOs8WTRPsBEm WEtMvaDFSu3+pd52YnBWRCZauHAe7GzRNxmYqDwE+8MQEbwy2F8iVvNKKiuXoy38UroK BJtw== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMI1kLsnZDmNyPEUCkqg6loPb/AuhQuzwNEckC8JBzImgEn4Kl/cYLNG1rnkfiRPw== X-Received: by 10.194.59.116 with SMTP id y20mr21792695wjq.181.1474217152464; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 09:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from adiPC ([188.24.78.211]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p13sm17684092wmd.1.2016.09.18.09.45.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sun, 18 Sep 2016 09:45:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Ioan-Adrian Ratiu To: Jani Nikula , Mark Walters , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] emacs: add tag jump menu In-Reply-To: <87a8f5uruv.fsf@nikula.org> References: <1474146583-28476-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> <87h99dg0af.fsf@adiPC.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <8737kxbmnx.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <87poo19t6i.fsf@adiPC.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87a8f5uruv.fsf@nikula.org> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 19:45:49 +0300 Message-ID: <87oa3lyx4y.fsf@adiPC.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 16:45:55 -0000 On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Mark Walters wrote: >>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I have implemented something similar in my tree and I really like the >>>> idea. I have one issue though. >>>> >>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Mark Walters wrote: >>>>> Add a "jump" style menu for doing tagging operations. >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> Jani suggested something like this on irc today. This is a first cut >>>>> to see if people like it. By default the tagging jump menu is bound to >>>>> k (which works in search/show/tree mode), and has the following options >>>>> >>>>> a (Archive) -inbox -unread >>>>> u (Mark Read) -unread >>>>> d (Delete) +deleted >>>>> >>>>> If you do ctrl-u k the it will do the reverse operation. >>>> >>>> I know C-u is default emacs behaviour but I find very cumbersone to do >>>> C-u for unapplying the tag. What I do and want is to simply apply the >>>> tag when pressing "d" then unapply it when pressing "d" again if the >>>> mail/thread already contains the deleted tag (basically it's a toggle). >>> >>> I agree that C-u is a little cumbersome -- I think I would be happy for >>> a toggle for single messages (with a single tag change), but for >>> multiple messages like a thread I think it would be very unclear what it >>> was doing. >> >> My workflow with the kind of code shown above is as follows: >> >> If in notmuch-search then pressing 'd' "deletes" everything selected, >> including multiple messages in a region and if a thread was selected in >> that region then the entire thread is deleted. > > You are not addressing the toggle case where some of the messages in > those threads have the tag, and some do not. How should notmuch know > whether you want to add or remove the deleted tag? In my usecase when I toggle a tag to a thread in notmuch-search, it is applied to all mails, obviously, and if I want to do per-mail tagging I go into notmuch-show. To answer your question I'll give an example: Suppose I have just some subset of a thread's mails tagged "+inbox" and I toggle pressing "i", then all the mails in that thread are marked "+inbox" and if I toggle again all are "-inbox". So removing a tag for a subset of the thread's mails is just a matter of toggling twice. I can always go in notmuch-show and do per-email tagging using toggles, say after I removed the "inbox" tag in the example above by toggling twice, I open the thread in notmuch-show and press "i" to toggle the tag back on any specific email. I'm using this for some time and it works really well :) > >> IMO this is the simplest and the clearest workflow. > > While working on Notmuch, one of the main lessons I've learned is that > *everyone* has their own, personal email workflow. We need to try to > give people discoverable and intuitive *mechanisms* on dealing with > email, and let people build their own workflows that suit them. Yes, I agree that it's better to provide mechanism than policy because workflows are so different. Tag toggling is just another mechanism, it can be customized, for example, when you toggle on a thread of which some mails already are tagged, should it add or remove that tag? This can be configured through a variable. > > (That said, I always try to encourage people to rethink their workflows > when switching to Notmuch. But it's still *their* workflow.) > > > BR, > Jani.