(setq notmuch-search-oldest-first nil) doesn't behave as expected

(setq notmuch-search-oldest-first nil) doesn't behave as expected

[Firmin Martin]

After upgraded notmuch (now 0.29.3), I realized that 
the following line in my init file

(setq notmuch-search-oldest-first nil)

didn't work anymore when I entered in "all mail". 
That is, my oldest emails show up firstly.

However, when I evaled 

(notmuch-search "*")

my newest emails are displayed. 

I checked the source code of notmuch-search and cannot understand why 
notmuch-search sorts my email oldest-first when it is called interactively.

> (interactive
>  (list
>   ;; Prompt for a query
>   nil
>   ;; Use the default search order (if we're doing a search from a
>   ;; search buffer, ignore any buffer-local overrides)
>   (default-value 'notmuch-search-oldest-first)))

For now, I can sort my email newest-first by customized the
variable. But I would prefer to use setq if possible.

Best,

Firmin Martin

Re: (setq notmuch-search-oldest-first nil) doesn't behave as expected

[David Bremner]

Firmin Martin <firmin.martin@ens-lyon.fr> writes:

>
> For now, I can sort my email newest-first by customized the
> variable. But I would prefer to use setq if possible.

It's a buffer-local variable, so you should use setq-default.

Re: (setq notmuch-search-oldest-first nil) doesn't behave as expected

[Firmin Martin]

Thanks for your reply. The question was still relevant.

David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes:

> Firmin Martin <firmin.martin@ens-lyon.fr> writes:
>
>>
>> For now, I can sort my email newest-first by customized the
>> variable. But I would prefer to use setq if possible.
>
> It's a buffer-local variable, so you should use setq-default.
> _______________________________________________
> notmuch mailing list -- notmuch@notmuchmail.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to notmuch-leave@notmuchmail.org

Re: (setq notmuch-search-oldest-first nil) doesn't behave as expected

[Ryan Tate]

David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes:
> Firmin Martin <firmin.martin@ens-lyon.fr> writes: 
>> 
>> For now, I can sort my email newest-first by customized the 
>> variable. But I would prefer to use setq if possible. 
> 
> It's a buffer-local variable, so you should use setq-default. 


I don't understand anything about this reply.

1. If I don't want any of my searches to ever sort incorrectly 
(oldest first), why would it be buffer local?

2. Regardless, why did this stop working? Was it announced? What 
is the correct way to configure this?

It is frustrating to have a setup that worked for years suddenly
stop. And this isn't the only one in this upgrade, just the first one
I'm asking about.

Re: (setq notmuch-search-oldest-first nil) doesn't behave as expected

[Ryan Tate]

Ryan Tate <ryantate@ryantate.com> writes:

> David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes: 
>> Firmin Martin <firmin.martin@ens-lyon.fr> writes:  
>>>  For now, I can sort my email newest-first by customized the 
>>> variable. But I would prefer to use setq if possible.  
>>  It's a buffer-local variable, so you should use setq-default.  
>  
> I don't understand anything about this reply. 

OK, setq-default restores the functionality.