From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C9D431E82 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:10:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w8U5sWRPfvKA for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:10:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu [131.215.239.19]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136EC431E62 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:10:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from earth-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by earth-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FEE566E01AC; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:10:25 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on earth-doxen by amavisd-new Received: from finestructure.net (DHCP-123-180.caltech.edu [131.215.123.180]) (Authenticated sender: jrollins) by earth-doxen-submit (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9311F66E01E7; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 17532436; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:10:17 -0800 (PST) From: Jameson Graef Rollins To: Mark Walters , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag In-Reply-To: <8739acrnu7.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> References: <1329296619-7463-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> <8739acrnu7.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+192~g2bb5859 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:10:14 -0800 Message-ID: <87zkckq86x.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:10:28 -0000 --=-=-= On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:46:56 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > I missed some of the previous discussion on this, but rather than add a > new flag, why not just use the existing "match" flag? If the message is > excluded, just mark "match" as "false". I think this is basically all > we really want. If the message is "excluded" include it in returned > threads, but just don't display it. This is in fact exactly what the > "match" flag is currently for, and I can't see any reason not to use it > here. We don't need to add anything new to the show output, and I > believe it will simplify this patch set considerably. Also, using the match flag means that all the consumers that use this will all automatically do the right thing, without modification. jamie. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPO/UGAAoJEO00zqvie6q8IfIP/j4rOQFHdXdvfzwXbhqEZxtM oYdHyNhBTn0s5o0G8gbOMo40guat0pM1dGLTXqAmIlRtO5oYQFMdrF02FBNp1+I8 +9yju+j67cccbHAKu/lHSyEFFqK3W4Ka9o2z3YrLxZnlICPh9aPHQunWb+caMGRA imA4oxmprctYRtoakhCE+vfTbCtvZ5IoZZUzJE12UWu/+d985lOu8TBAPGdtspR8 W6AOhJjtoQ0yS9CMGTCCqZ+3iHZGNzWVrzW4742xtqqjr7gsOi+1qMAYifVHltSQ vDvwo7NgyAQ4/u8lFAv7KyQN4nDHSgdfvpzBRbm0zIHqNEijmill+JnL1Wbcitm7 BleqXCVo9/Qxqlqh6WJAvEfxFCiYt5U7POC49ih8+WFAkWkNLGaOktz0L6o1w7Ej 5Gw+VQe1pl14qbXKf/4aAuFCsk1BaEi9gHQrH1/BrYzQHrF6aDZmY8Q31kugHdsB 4SjOcBfs0ViAM/h6SsHSoQy1tqAGy0+rShngYbINsPz4E0bFjcKx4tdH4iwuMnCK tC6coavFZxueSfCQ5gDR1wEw+UZFtQmtE1buozoqjMLxwf4ULECGqN68shaQTPxf gWJYHbQkDpDzeDBv3F4H3VNfd2qzCMPxzpjskhKjqk4Bzv1F6wqiUz3H6AHFoKGk 8lF6a6iK3Vdos60o5SGx =Tkwu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--