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 A83CF6DE00EA for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:00:02 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: arlo.cworth.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ryantate.com header.i=@ryantate.com header.b="Z4ZtT3OQ"; dkim-atps=neutral X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.093 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.292, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, 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 VucXzWNFUWH9 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:59:58 -0800 (PST) X-Greylist: delayed 573 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at arlo; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:59:57 PST Received: from helm.ryantate.com (helm.ryantate.com [52.37.201.218]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E83716DE00DD for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:59:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ryantate.com; s=mail; t=1583513422; bh=VEUGYPqjjQdX/wgrEHQ2Sc5LnY0TQr9xX1/2eTGZYas=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Z4ZtT3OQat66UK/1nkpDbPZAXIB9YjYJVjHHdFoN6q8G5kCvDpi57h7P+6+ZCdQ1A lSUnpYkMtCdJlLO+I1uoJGSZq1M64OsERrV4pQq/vzdOR6ni4c9fD489QIEAsG9+a/ dZZF0NhUuzufXpDCQ+mUGWM/UMrlLb1IDYnLcswM= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-002F1C21-DA97-4FC2-BFB7-40E3B727A7A1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: oldest-first From: Ryan Tate X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G102) In-Reply-To: <87blp9cwnx.fsf@tethera.net> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:50:18 -0500 Cc: Tom Hirschowitz , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <87ftelzrwp.fsf@hirscho.lama.univ-savoie.fr> <87blp9cwnx.fsf@tethera.net> To: David Bremner X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 17:00:02 -0000 --Apple-Mail-002F1C21-DA97-4FC2-BFB7-40E3B727A7A1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Mar 6, 2020, at 10:47 AM, David Bremner wrote: >=20 > There is the following documentation in notmuch-search(1). >=20 > Note: The thread order will be distinct between these two options (bey= ond being sim=E2=80=90 > ply reversed). When sorting by oldest-first the threads will be sorted= by the oldest > message in each thread, but when sorting by newest-first the threads w= ill be sorted > by the newest message in each thread. >=20 > If what you are seeing is consistent with that, then I guess it's > officially not a bug. The documentation seems to be in error, assuming you have copied it correctl= y. It says the thread orders are not strictly inverse between the two option= s, but then describes them precisely inverse.=20 Perhaps the word =E2=80=9Cunread=E2=80=9D was unintentionally elided by the d= oc author, such that you could correct with the capitalized addition: > When sorting by oldest-first the threads will be sorted by the oldest UNRE= AD > message in each thread, but when sorting by newest-first the threads w= ill be sorted > by the newest message in each thread. This would match the behavior described by Tom.=20 --Apple-Mail-002F1C21-DA97-4FC2-BFB7-40E3B727A7A1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mar 6, 2020, at 10:47 AM, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:

There is the following do= cumentation in notmuch-search(1).

 &n= bsp;  Note: The thread order will be distinct between these two op= tions (beyond being sim=E2=80=90
    pl= y reversed). When sorting by oldest-first the threads will be sorted by the o= ldest
    message  in each thread,= but when sorting by newest-first the threads will be sorted
    by the newest message in each thread.

If what you are seeing is consistent with that, then I g= uess it's
officially not a bug.

The documentation seems to be in error, assuming you ha= ve copied it correctly. It says the thread orders are not strictly inverse b= etween the two options, but then describes them precisely inverse. 

Perhaps the word =E2=80=9Cunread=E2=80=9D was unintent= ionally elided by the doc author, such that you could correct with the capit= alized addition:

When sorting by oldest-first the t= hreads will be sorted by the oldest UNREAD
    messag= e  in each thread, but when sorting by newest-first the threads will be= sorted
    by the newest message in each thread.

This would match t= he behavior described by Tom. 

= --Apple-Mail-002F1C21-DA97-4FC2-BFB7-40E3B727A7A1--