On Sat, 05 Oct 2013, Austin Clements <amdra...@mit.edu> wrote: > Great list. > > One of the problems with the current approach, which most of these > options share, is that there's no feedback. For example, when I enter > a thread, I have no idea if the first message was unread or not. I'd > like a solution that either naturally doesn't have this problem, that > visually indicates that a message *was* unread, or that delays all > unread marking until you leave the thread (possibly combined with a > visual indication of what will be marked unread). Bonus points if > it's easy to adjust what happens, such as saying "keep everything > unread" or "keep everything unread except this one".
I like the idea of not doing the update until you actually leave the buffer. > To this end, here are my two proposals: > > A1) Mark whole thread read when you leave it (via q, X, A or friends) > and provide a binding to leave a thread without marking it read (C-x k > would do, but we should provide an explicit one; perhaps C-u prefixing > other "leave" bindings? For once, C-u is easy to remember because u > is the first letter of unread). > > A2) Like A1, but mark only messages up to and containing point when > you leave a thread. I like A2 but would like to check exactly what you meant: would this only mark open messages (ie not collapsed messages) up to point? I also like the prefix argument for q etc idea but I have a plausible variation: ctrl-u q (etc) could say "mark 4 messages unread y/N?" so you could easily see what it would do (but default to not doing it). I am imagining not updating read/unread as the less common case. I guess if we provide functions for each case it is easy for a user to configure. (Actually is it easy for a user to configure how prefix arguments work?) The only time in my use this would do the wrong thing is if I open all messages with M-Ret I think this also simplifies the mark-read code quite substantially which is nice. Best wishes Mark > In either case, I'd like an echo message when I leave the thread > telling me what happened ("Thread marked as read", "First 3 messages > marked as read; thread archived", etc.). These would blend especially > well with undo, because they would bundle together all read marking > into a single action that would make sense to undo ("Thread marked as > read [C-/ to undo]"). > > Both options are highly predictable and easy to understand. They > don't lose information about which messages were unread when you > entered a thread. And they're easy to adjust (you can always -unread > a message manually and then C-u q or whatever to leave without > touching anything else). > > Quoth Mark Walters on Oct 05 at 10:19 am: >> >> Hello >> >> I agree that the unread tag does not work well. There are some instances >> which I would class as plain bugs (notmuch-show-next-message which is >> bound to N marks the new message read even if it is collapsed) and >> other instances where it is not clear what the correct behaviour should >> be. >> >> I have messed around a bit and there seem to be a lot of possible >> variants and I don't know whether any would have any consensus. >> >> One clear divide is whether we should only mark "visited messages" (ie >> ones reached using space, n,N,p,P etc in the current bindings) or we >> should also make messages seen by scrolling past (eg with page down). >> >> Anyway here is a list of some possibilities. In all cases I assume we do >> not mark any collapsed message read. >> >> 1) Mark a message read when we visit it. >> 2) Mark a message read when we visit it and the leave it with a "visit >> move" (eg n for next message) >> >> 3) Mark a message read if we see the start of the message in the buffer. >> 4) Mark a message read if we have seen the start and end of the message >> in the buffer. >> 5) Mark a message read if we see the end of the message after seeing the >> start (rationale moving to the top of the buffer is likely "movement" >> rather than "reading") >> >> 6) Something based on how we leave the message: eg page down could mark >> all messages which were fully visible read, n (next-open message) could >> mark the message being left read. >> 7) Similar to 6) but something where read necessarily includes have seen >> the start of the message. >> >> I think all of these are reasonably easy to implement, and I think I >> know which I would like (something like 5 or 7) but it would be >> interesting to know if there is any general view or any view on how >> customisable this should be. >> >> Does anyone have any thoughts? >> >> Best wishes >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Gregor Zattler <telegr...@gmx.net> wrote: >> > Dear notmuchers, >> > >> > I had difficulties to reliably remove the "unread" tag from >> > messages. Mostly I page through threads with the space bar and >> > all is well. But when the beginning of the thread is already >> > collapsed and I "jump" in the middle of a message pressing space >> > bar does not remove the unread tag. It's only removed when >> > *entering* the message via space bar from the previous message. >> > So the last press on space bar in the previous message jumps to >> > the next message and at the same time removes its unread tag. >> > >> > This seems strange to me. I would say the unread tag should be >> > removed when leaving the message with the last press on space >> > bar, indicating that one really paged trough the whole message >> > instead of only seeing the very beginning of it. >> > >> > What’s the rationale to this behaviour? Am I missing something? >> > >> > Thanks for your attention, gregor _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch