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 D523B431FB6 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:29:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable 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 yd9Q-xahlEla for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:29:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f53.google.com (mail-qw0-f53.google.com [209.85.216.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DA5C431FB5 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:29:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by qwe5 with SMTP id 5so548541qwe.26 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:29:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9lkJxNBwQB+2J0C3JXDveO5y04QB/oIPIuDGpOE39BM=; b=rvCB8FGx7g0jCUjAnZSVVVMX1/N+3ikf8vqnTT1rdZJlQfTeyxGK859wWe8bGl1iW+ zHm+VmD7Jd0fAwZzPOdo/+qQmbO5I8nkAeKNlPUbiKMCixCUKmziTlB80ZsgAtT7/B1E vr/eujZDCSKvYmXYSSGvErq62+J0vELcMWAvk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=EUcva0Yoy1+dSdSFhabgyYrIvUzejr4DxBbDhd22MtV1N54gaCedWhJP1cfe3Vsn9a Yh3kWQX1eAhudFsgcVOTOrHpBCuscx9AjazRxPP48IMx0pu5Ru7EPeBhAIUZLa7JyBRx FgaZAtXQa7ijpEgwHfG8yihrBLXj3txWEw9Xo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.220.81 with SMTP id hx17mr344099qcb.116.1295422186533; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:29:46 -0800 (PST) Sender: amdragon@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.97.143 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:29:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <871v4a7zt6.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> References: <87tyh9wzs2.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87oc7fe590.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> <87aaiy3u65.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <871v4a7zt6.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 02:29:46 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: EJWeScTXp7xZz68Cn5kXrORK-XA Message-ID: Subject: Re: Folder-based searching From: Austin Clements To: Rob Browning Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630eb234334db049a2dfb59 Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org 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, 19 Jan 2011 07:29:50 -0000 --00163630eb234334db049a2dfb59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The folder search implementation in the custom query parser is always rooted (both because that happened to be much easier to do in that design, and because I agree with you that rooted searches seem preferable most of the time). What arguments do people have for or against rooted folder searches? On a similar note, another difference is that cworth's folder search is recursive (which, I suppose, follows from being non-rooted). That is, a search for "folder:foo" will find any message in any folder under foo. The folder search I posted is non-recursive. Thus, "folder:foo" specifically searches the foo maildir (that is, any mail under foo, foo/new, or foo/cur). I consider different folders to be, well, different, regardless of nesting, but what are other people's thoughts? On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Rob Browning wrote: > > I'd be tempted to consider making folder: searches rooted by default. I > wonder how often people really want "all folders named misc"? --00163630eb234334db049a2dfb59 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The folder search implementation in the custom query parser is always roote= d (both because that happened to be much easier to do in that design, and b= ecause I agree with you that rooted searches seem preferable most of the ti= me). =A0What arguments do people have for or against rooted folder searches= ?

On a similar note, another difference is that cworth's f= older search is recursive (which, I suppose, follows from being non-rooted)= . =A0That is, a search for "folder:foo" will find any message in = any folder under foo. =A0The folder search I posted is non-recursive. =A0Th= us, "folder:foo" specifically searches the foo maildir (that is, = any mail under foo, foo/new, or foo/cur). =A0I consider different folders t= o be, well, different, regardless of nesting, but what are other people'= ;s thoughts?

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Rob Brownin= g <rlb@default= value.org> wrote:
I'd be tempted to consider making folder: searches ro= oted by default. =A0I
wonder how often people really want "all folders named misc"?
--00163630eb234334db049a2dfb59--