Re: [mmh] Previous-Sequence
Hoi. [2020-03-25 01:08] "Simon Thelen" > [2020-03-24 23:38] Philipp Takacs > > [2020-03-24 08:56] markus schnalke > > > [2020-03-23 21:46] Philipp Takacs > > > > > > > > A updated version of my patches is attached, including the updated > > > > man pages. > > > > > > Please add a HISTORY section to the mh-sequence(7) manpage with > > > some explanation about the removal of the Previous-Sequence, so > > > that people, who search for it, are informed that it was removed > > > and why. > > > > > > Then it's ready to commit, I'd say. > > > > OK I have added following: > > I tried editing the wording a bit to make it read better. > > > --- a/man/mh-sequence.man7 > > +++ b/man/mh-sequence.man7 > > @@ -263,5 +263,24 @@ in your profile with an empty value. > > .SH "SEE ALSO" > > flist(1), mark(1), pick(1), mh-profile(5) > > > > +.SH "HISTORY" > > +.SS Previous\-Sequence > > +Earlier versions of > > +.B mmh > > +supported the `Previous\-Sequence'. > > This sequence stored the selected messages for the previous mmh command. > It was disabled by default because it introduced a lot of extra writes to the > .mh_sequences file. > Additionally, it introduced possible race conditions when running multiple > mmh commands in parallel. > The feature was removed for these reasons. > [..] I further suggest to change the last sentence: As this feature was rarely used, it was removed. The reason for the removal is not that it is technically difficult (MIME or the unseen sequence are difficult as well). It probably motivated Philipp to look at it in the first place, but the true reason for the removal is that we don't really need the feature. The technical difficulty just makes it more attractive to remove a hardly used feature. Or to look at it from a different perspective: There's not enough gain from it's high technical cost. But for this perspective, the previous sequence is not the beste example. Here the reason really is that it is hardly used and hardly necessary to cover even non-standard usecases. Great to see mmh rolling again! :-) meillo
Re: [mmh] Previous-Sequence
[2020-03-24 23:38] Philipp Takacs Hi, > [2020-03-24 08:56] markus schnalke > > [2020-03-23 21:46] Philipp Takacs > > > A updated version of my patches is attached, including the updated > > > man pages. > > > > Please add a HISTORY section to the mh-sequence(7) manpage with > > some explanation about the removal of the Previous-Sequence, so > > that people, who search for it, are informed that it was removed > > and why. > > > > Then it's ready to commit, I'd say. > > OK I have added following: I tried editing the wording a bit to make it read better. > --- a/man/mh-sequence.man7 > +++ b/man/mh-sequence.man7 > @@ -263,5 +263,24 @@ in your profile with an empty value. > .SH "SEE ALSO" > flist(1), mark(1), pick(1), mh-profile(5) > > +.SH "HISTORY" > +.SS Previous\-Sequence > +Earlier versions of > +.B mmh > +supported the `Previous\-Sequence'. This sequence stored the selected messages for the previous mmh command. It was disabled by default because it introduced a lot of extra writes to the .mh_sequences file. Additionally, it introduced possible race conditions when running multiple mmh commands in parallel. The feature was removed for these reasons. [..] -- Simon Thelen
Re: [mmh] Previous-Sequence
[2020-03-24 08:56] markus schnalke > [2020-03-23 21:46] Philipp Takacs > > A updated version of my patches is attached, including the updated > > man pages. > > Please add a HISTORY section to the mh-sequence(7) manpage with > some explanation about the removal of the Previous-Sequence, so > that people, who search for it, are informed that it was removed > and why. > > Then it's ready to commit, I'd say. OK I have added following: --- a/man/mh-sequence.man7 +++ b/man/mh-sequence.man7 @@ -263,5 +263,24 @@ in your profile with an empty value. .SH "SEE ALSO" flist(1), mark(1), pick(1), mh-profile(5) +.SH "HISTORY" +.SS Previous\-Sequence +Earlier versions of +.B mmh +supported the `Previous\-Sequence'. +In this sequence every +.B mmh +command save the selected messages. +This feature was disabled by default, +because it introduces a lot write access to the +.IR \&.mh_sequence +file. +If you used multiple +.B mmh +commands parallel or other tools writing the +.IR \&.mh_sequence +file, this could lead to race conditions. +Because of this this feature was removed. + .SH DEFAULTS None > > > meillo >
Re: [mmh] Previous-Sequence
Hoi. [2020-03-23 21:46] Philipp Takacs > [2020-03-22 07:53] markus schnalke > > [2020-03-22 00:21] Philipp Takacs > > > [2020-03-21 09:54] markus schnalke > > > > Before we remove it, I just would like to know why it was > > > > introduced in MH the first time and what possible other usecases > > > > there could be. This means asking on the nmh-workers mailing list. > > > > Both, out of curiosity and as a double-check in case we've not > > > > thought on something. Do you wanna write this message or should > > > > I? > > > > > > This is a good idea. I want to write this mail. > > > > > > So conclusion ask the nmh guys for use cases we missed and if there > > > aren't any, remove it. > > > > Yes! :-) > > > > Please as well ask them when and why the previous sequence was > > introduced. I'd like to have confirmed that it was because of lack > > of a shell history, or told why else. > > I have asked[0] them. > > [0] https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2020-03/msg0.html Thanks for asking. i've read through the mails there. > Some conclusion: > > We have missed that a command may have side effects. Here the example > from Ralph: > > show next:3 > scan !$ > > I see, this isn't possible to solve without a sequence. This is a > problem, when you notice you want to use these messages after you > started show. I would say this corner case isn't sufficient to keep the > Previous-Sequence. If you did show n:3 you can use scan c:-3 to address the same messages. For further commands on the same messages, you keep repeating `c:-3', as the commands place `c' again on the last message of the range. (You have to be careful, however, if the first command was mark(1), for instance, because mark(1) does not change the current message, thus the second command would still take `n:3'.) Yes, that requires some brain action, compared to the pseq, but it's feasible if you know the commands. Btw: I agree with what Valdis wrote about muscle memory that was set in times before command line editing was available. A lot of the nmh guys are that old. I have such hard-wired typing strokes too ... only that they were burned in some decades later. ;-) But still not enough reason to keep it. > I would say remove it. Yes. > A updated version of my patches is attached, including the updated > man pages. Please add a HISTORY section to the mh-sequence(7) manpage with some explanation about the removal of the Previous-Sequence, so that people, who search for it, are informed that it was removed and why. Then it's ready to commit, I'd say. meillo
