Re: Display of threads, order in question
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 07:08:42PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote: ===CONFIDENTIAL=== On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:14:20PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: I'm trying to understand if it's 'normal' (wink: Derek Oh ah. Yes, well, being totally sober when I replied to this, I completely glossed over the single-quotedness of this. As it should be. :) -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpLYlB1OVvxC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:01:47AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: On 23May2014 19:08, Guy Gold g...@merl.com wrote: Confidential? Really? Only if you really want it to be...(send hooks, work in progress) Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads, order in question Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson ├─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:11AM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:54AM EDT David Champion │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:15:05PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:05:13PM EDT David Champion │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:50:55PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:14:20PM EDT Derek Martin └─ Suppose your message of 06:50PM was not yet arrived to the mailbox. That makes Derek's message of 4:14PM more recent than the most recent message of the other subthread (David's, of 04:05PM). So Derek's _subthread_ (one message long) is listed above _my_ subthread (running from 07:22PMmay22 to David at 04:05PMmay23). So Derek's thread is listed first. Then your reply to my subthread arrived, and it makes that subthread newer than Derek's. So that subthread moves up above Derek. Does this explain the behaviour? Yes, I believe it does. I copied the state of thread before this reply - that I'm writing right now, and will see how this reply changes things. -- GG
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On Fri,May 23 11:37:AM, Cameron Simpson wrote: I have no idea if it is normal. Besides, that should be irrelevant. Does it work for you? If so, why? When not, why not? Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy├─ Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─ Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─ Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─ Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit│ └─ Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─ Ok, question 1: do you use %d or %D for the date field in your $index_format string? [..] Importantly, %D is the message date in your local time zone. If you use %d, you get the sender's time zone (i.e., as it is in the message header), and that will vary widely. Quite possibly producing the listing above. my index_format: set index_format=%?M? ?%2Z %15D %-20.20F %s Here is the same thread in my mail folder (with some stuff removed after the ) to make the lines fit. 18May2014 18:14 list mail - ┌ 18May2014 04:51 Kevin J. McCart - ┌ 18May2014 16:58 Karl Voit - │ ┌ 18May2014 11:51 To Karl Voit- │ ┌ 18May2014 09:02 Gary Johnson- │ ├ 18May2014 07:59 Karl Voit - │┌ 18May2014 07:04 Mike Glover - ├ 18May2014 02:19 Karl Voit - Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Notice that all the dates within a given subthread ore in order? This makes me think you do not have an ordering problem but a display problem. That, pretty much, is what I'm trying to get to, only reversed, with the newest message, on the bottom. I wonder if other parts of my .muttrc breaking it. -- Guy Gold MERL Computer Services g...@merl.com
Re: Display of threads, order in question
* On 23 May 2014, Guy Gold wrote: That, pretty much, is what I'm trying to get to, only reversed, with the newest message, on the bottom. I wonder if other parts of my .muttrc breaking it. For threading, you need sort=threads. Sort_aux is the only variable. Reverse- and last- are modulation prefixes. Your base sort param is either date or date-received. (I use date-received because I don't trust people's sending MUAs to set an accurate date, and messages often wind up hours or days behind in my inbox.) With sort=threads, sort_aux controls the order of threads. Order of messages within threads cannot be altered. Prepend reverse- to invert the thread sort order, making newer threads appear earlier instead of later. Newer normally means with a more recent anchor/base message. Prepend last- to make newer mean more recently updated. Sort_aux=last-date-received will put the threads in chronological order, with the most recently updated threads (i.e. those with the newest messages in the thread) later in the sort. -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:22:54AM -0500, David Champion wrote: * On 23 May 2014, Guy Gold wrote: That, pretty much, is what I'm trying to get to, only reversed, with the newest message, on the bottom. I wonder if other parts of my .muttrc breaking it. Sort_aux=last-date-received will put the threads in chronological order, with the most recently updated threads (i.e. those with the newest messages in the thread) later in the sort. That is all true. But, I cannot explain some of the behaviour I'm getting. Notice the two threads here: The first one, is sorted very well according to what I expect. The second one has some flaws with regards to the sort. It looks like, once authors of messages write to others (rather than replying one after another, chronologically), that's when the mix-up happens. Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads, order in question Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:11AM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:54AM EDT David Champion └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 02:51:40PM EDT Kevin J. McCarthy┬─Re: Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sun, May 18, 2014 at 04:14:23AM EDT Chris Green │ └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:04:29PM EDT Mike Glover └─Re: Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:59:53PM EDT Karl Voit └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:51:00PM EDT Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun, May 18, 2014 at 02:58:31AM EDT Karl Voit│ └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:02:19PM EDT Gary Johnson └─ -- GG
Re: Display of threads, order in question
* On 23 May 2014, Guy Gold wrote: That is all true. But, I cannot explain some of the behaviour I'm getting. Notice the two threads here: The first one, is sorted very well according to what I expect. The second one has some flaws with regards to the sort. It looks like, once authors of messages write to others (rather than replying one after another, chronologically), that's when the mix-up happens. Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads, order in question Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:11AM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:54AM EDT David Champion └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 02:51:40PM EDT Kevin J. McCarthy┬─Re: Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sun, May 18, 2014 at 04:14:23AM EDT Chris Green │ └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:04:29PM EDT Mike Glover └─Re: Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:59:53PM EDT Karl Voit └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:51:00PM EDT Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun, May 18, 2014 at 02:58:31AM EDT Karl Voit│ └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:02:19PM EDT Gary Johnson └─ These both look correct, to me, for sort_aux=reverse-last-date[-received]. Whether sort=threads or sort=reverse-threads is irrelevant in this case, since you're showing only one thread. What looks wrong to you? -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: Display of threads, order in question
Hi Guy, On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote: I'm trying to understand if it's 'normal' (wink: Derek Martin, if you copy) to have most of my threads sorted not-really-through-date-received. Why are you winking at me? As for your question: Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy├─ Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─ Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─ Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─ Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit│ └─ Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─ This is normal and expected. The messages form a tree (a directed graph) which shows the relationship of what was replied to. They ARE in chronological order... if you consider that; i.e. each individual branch of the tree is in chronological order. This ordering is important, because it enables you to visually see the relationship between messages from a particular branch of the thread, so you can ignore them if you aren't interested in that branch (like if someone posts something tangential to the thread). For example: let's say that in the thread above, Kevin's response was (in your mind) just some commentary about how some other mail program handled the problem better, but you had no interest. Then you can see that Chris's response to that message is also most likely not something you're interested in, based on the path of the graph that is drawn. If you sort these purely in the order they arrive, you can't draw the graph; you're limited to having just one level of replies. As far as I know Mutt can not be configured to display threads the way you are imagining them... it by and large defeats the purpose of having threads. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpG4P6fAGtdT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:05:13PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads, order in question Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:11AM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:54AM EDT David Champion └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 02:51:40PM EDT Kevin J. McCarthy┬─Re: Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sun, May 18, 2014 at 04:14:23AM EDT Chris Green │ └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:04:29PM EDT Mike Glover └─Re: Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:59:53PM EDT Karl Voit └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:51:00PM EDT Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun, May 18, 2014 at 02:58:31AM EDT Karl Voit│ └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:02:19PM EDT Gary Johnson └─ These both look correct, to me, for sort_aux=reverse-last-date[-received]. Whether sort=threads or sort=reverse-threads is irrelevant in this case, since you're showing only one thread. What looks wrong to you? David, I understand. Thank you for clearing it up. ===CONFIDENTIAL=== -- GG
Re: Display of threads, order in question
===CONFIDENTIAL=== On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:14:20PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: I'm trying to understand if it's 'normal' (wink: Derek Martin, if you copy) to have most of my threads sorted not-really-through-date-received. Why are you winking at me? This is from a different thread, recognize the composer ? Mostly I reply here due to a curiosity: Why is 'messed' in single quotes here? I see people do this increasingly often, and I don't get why. Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy├─ Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─ Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─ Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─ Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit│ └─ Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─ This is normal and expected. The messages form a tree (a directed graph) which shows the relationship of what was replied to. They ARE in chronological order... if you consider that; i.e. each individual branch of the tree is in chronological order. This ordering is important, because it enables you to visually see the relationship between messages from a particular branch of the thread, so you can ignore them if you aren't interested in that branch (like if someone posts something tangential to the thread). I understand, and that was one of my suspicions, and, I was not sure if this falls under normal thread behaviour, or not. I've been trying to reflect on this idea for quite some time now, and I guess, I can finally lay it to rest. When it happens, though, sometimes I do see irregular behaviour. e.g : right in this current thread, when I opened the mutt mailbox, your messages, from 4:14PM, was right above Cameron's message from 7:22PM. At that point, I thought - that's because your responding directly to my message. Then, I refreshed my index for some other reason, and the index shifted to what you see now: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads, order in question Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson ├─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:11AM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:54AM EDT David Champion │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:15:05PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:05:13PM EDT David Champion │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:50:55PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:14:20PM EDT Derek Martin └─ Just to clarify things up, which one of the two instances would you consider at valid? Should your 4:14 message being right below my OP, or where it is, as you see in the paste ? -- GG
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On 23May2014 19:08, Guy Gold g...@merl.com wrote: ===CONFIDENTIAL=== Confidential? Really? [...] When it happens, though, sometimes I do see irregular behaviour. e.g : right in this current thread, when I opened the mutt mailbox, your messages, from 4:14PM, was right above Cameron's message from 7:22PM. At that point, I thought - that's because your responding directly to my message. Then, I refreshed my index for some other reason, and the index shifted to what you see now: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads, order in question Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson ├─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:11AM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:54AM EDT David Champion │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:15:05PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:05:13PM EDT David Champion │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:50:55PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:14:20PM EDT Derek Martin └─ Just to clarify things up, which one of the two instances would you consider at valid? Should your 4:14 message being right below my OP, or where it is, as you see in the paste ? Aha. I see your confusion. Note that the subthreads are recursively sorted on their most recent member. So: Suppose your message of 06:50PM was not yet arrived to the mailbox. That makes Derek's message of 4:14PM more recent than the most recent message of the other subthread (David's, of 04:05PM). So Derek's _subthread_ (one message long) is listed above _my_ subthread (running from 07:22PMmay22 to David at 04:05PMmay23). So Derek's thread is listed first. Then your reply to my subthread arrived, and it makes that subthread newer than Derek's. So that subthread moves up above Derek. Does this explain the behaviour? Cheers, Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au Try not, do. Do not, try not. - Yoda
Display of threads, order in question
Greetings, mutt users. Here are the relevant parts from .muutrc: set sort=threads set sort_aux=reverse-last-date-received The above places the thread with the newest message on top, with the next newest under it, an so on. Reading through .muttrc, It's not the best way to sort, but, I got used it. I'm trying to understand if it's 'normal' (wink: Derek Martin, if you copy) to have most of my threads sorted not-really-through-date-received. In the same thread, a message from 14:00 will display above a message from 13:59, and the same goes for messages days apart. On a thread with 3+ messages, I start to sort messages mentally, in order to follow correct order. Is it a valid function of how mutt sorts threads, or, am I to blame ? Here's an example of how a recent thread, in this mailing list, is presented, in my mutt index. Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy├─ Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─ Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─ Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─ Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit│ └─ Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─ Thank you. -- GG
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On 22May2014 17:19, Guy Gold g...@merl.com wrote: Here are the relevant parts from .muutrc: set sort=threads set sort_aux=reverse-last-date-received I use: sort=reverse-threads sort_aux=last-date for most folders. (Spam folders I sort by subject, it groups better for mass discarding.) FOr me, this places the most recent messages at the top, which discourages me from replying before being properly caught up on the whole thread. And I use late-date instaed of reverse-last-date-received because I care when the message was authored, not when it was received: better logical flow. The above places the thread with the newest message on top, with the next newest under it, an so on. Reading through .muttrc, It's not the best way to sort, but, I got used it. I'm trying to understand if it's 'normal' (wink: Derek Martin, if you copy) to have most of my threads sorted not-really-through-date-received. I have no idea if it is normal. Besides, that should be irrelevant. Does it work for you? If so, why? When not, why not? In the same thread, a message from 14:00 will display above a message from 13:59, and the same goes for messages days apart. On a thread with 3+ messages, I start to sort messages mentally, in order to follow correct order. This is why I sort on the message date instead of its physical arrival time. Is it a valid function of how mutt sorts threads, or, am I to blame ? It is valid in that it is what you asked for. Whether what you asked for is sane is another matter. The question is: why date-received instead of date? For me, date is the relevant criterion. Here's an example of how a recent thread, in this mailing list, is presented, in my mutt index. Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy├─ Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─ Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─ Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─ Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit│ └─ Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─ I'm not sure what you dislike in this listing. Cheers, Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with. - Tenessee Williams
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On Fri,May 23 09:22:AM, Cameron Simpson wrote: I have no idea if it is normal. Besides, that should be irrelevant. Does it work for you? If so, why? When not, why not? Does not work for me, no. I'm trying to get 'date' to be the main sorting criteria. In the example I provided, ideally, the two messages from the 18th, would be at the bottom of the thread, with the very newest one, May 18,2:28PM as the last one listed. The question is: why date-received instead of date? For me, date is the relevant criterion. Yes, it can be date, though that yields the same results. Here's an example of how a recent thread, in this mailing list, is presented, in my mutt index. Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy├─ Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─ Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─ Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─ Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit│ └─ Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─ I'm not sure what you dislike in this listing. if the entire thread was unread, and I needed to get to the three newest messages, I would have had to bounce around a bit. If this was a 22 message count thread, it would have been a bit harsh. In that case, I re-sort the index, non-threaded, and that way, I'm able to get the actual chronological order of messages, but, then I lose the threaded advantage. -- GG
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On 22May2014 20:54, Guy Gold g...@merl.com wrote: On Fri,May 23 09:22:AM, Cameron Simpson wrote: I have no idea if it is normal. Besides, that should be irrelevant. Does it work for you? If so, why? When not, why not? Does not work for me, no. I'm trying to get 'date' to be the main sorting criteria. In the example I provided, ideally, the two messages from the 18th, would be at the bottom of the thread, with the very newest one, May 18,2:28PM as the last one listed. [...] Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy├─ Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─ Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─ Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─ Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit│ └─ Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─ Ok, question 1: do you use %d or %D for the date field in your $index_format string? Importantly, %D is the message date in your local time zone. If you use %d, you get the sender's time zone (i.e., as it is in the message header), and that will vary widely. Quite possibly producing the listing above. Here is the same thread in my mail folder (with some stuff removed after the ) to make the lines fit. 18May2014 18:14 list mail - ┌ 18May2014 04:51 Kevin J. McCart - ┌ 18May2014 16:58 Karl Voit - │ ┌ 18May2014 11:51 To Karl Voit- │ ┌ 18May2014 09:02 Gary Johnson- │ ├ 18May2014 07:59 Karl Voit - │┌ 18May2014 07:04 Mike Glover - ├ 18May2014 02:19 Karl Voit - Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Notice that all the dates within a given subthread ore in order? This makes me think you do not have an ordering problem but a display problem. if the entire thread was unread, and I needed to get to the three newest messages, I would have had to bounce around a bit. If this was a 22 message count thread, it would have been a bit harsh. In that case, I re-sort the index, non-threaded, and that way, I'm able to get the actual chronological order of messages, but, then I lose the threaded advantage. Hmm. Personally I like to read the thread, so I go the the oldest unread message and start there. That way the replies come in a sensible order. It sound like you want to order on thread-id (no such animal really) then message date. Is that what you're after? But you say you want the thread Please check your date_format for %d vs %D, and see if things only look wrong because of time zone issues. Cheers, Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au
