On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:41:15 +, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 20:12:59 -0500, Austin Clements
> wrote:
> > Quoth Aaron Ecay on Jan 08 at 7:56 pm:
> > > On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > In the show view it only
> There's been quite a bit of discussion on fixing this properly. See,
> for example
> id:"CAH-f9WsPj=1Eu=g3sOePJgCTBFs6HrLdLq18xMEnJ8aZ00yCEg at mail.gmail.com".
> The gist is that we need to include message IDs (or document IDs) in
> the search output and use these in tagging operations,
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:38:58 +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> > The downside is that there's still a race condition: you could get new
> > messages between checking the number of messages in the thread and
> > tagging. The window for error would be much smaller than now, but it's
> > still there. (You
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 20:12:59 -0500, Austin Clements wrote:
> Quoth Aaron Ecay on Jan 08 at 7:56 pm:
> > On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > In the show view it only modifies the messages that are currently
> > > visible. This is to make sure you don't
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 20:12:59 -0500, Austin Clements wrote:
> ... so we need to switch Emacs over to using the JSON search format
> first.
Is anyone working on this? I made an attempt ages ago[1], but have not kept
it working.
Footnotes:
[1] id:"1291114825-3513-1-git-send-email-dme at dme.org"
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 20:12:59 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
... so we need to switch Emacs over to using the JSON search format
first.
Is anyone working on this? I made an attempt ages ago[1], but have not kept
it working.
Footnotes:
[1]
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 20:12:59 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
Quoth Aaron Ecay on Jan 08 at 7:56 pm:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
[...]
In the show view it only modifies the messages that are currently
visible. This is to
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:41:15 +, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 20:12:59 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
Quoth Aaron Ecay on Jan 08 at 7:56 pm:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
[...]
In the show
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:38:58 +0200, Tomi Ollila tomi.oll...@iki.fi wrote:
The downside is that there's still a race condition: you could get new
messages between checking the number of messages in the thread and
tagging. The window for error would be much smaller than now, but it's
still
There's been quite a bit of discussion on fixing this properly. See,
for example
id:CAH-f9WsPj=1Eu=g3soepjgctbfs6hrldlq18xmenj8az00y...@mail.gmail.com.
The gist is that we need to include message IDs (or document IDs) in
the search output and use these in tagging operations, rather than the
Quoth Aaron Ecay on Jan 08 at 7:56 pm:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > In the show view it only modifies the messages that are currently
> > visible. This is to make sure you don't accidentally archive things that
> > have arrived after refreshing the
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
[...]
> In the show view it only modifies the messages that are currently
> visible. This is to make sure you don't accidentally archive things that
> have arrived after refreshing the buffer. I think this is safest.
Hmm. Perhaps it would
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
[...]
In the show view it only modifies the messages that are currently
visible. This is to make sure you don't accidentally archive things that
have arrived after refreshing the buffer. I think this is safest.
Hmm.
Quoth Aaron Ecay on Jan 08 at 7:56 pm:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
[...]
In the show view it only modifies the messages that are currently
visible. This is to make sure you don't accidentally archive things that
have arrived after refreshing
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:58:30 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:38:18 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins finestructure.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > In the search view it does exactly this.
> >
> > I worry about race conditions in this
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:38:18 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > In the search view it does exactly this.
>
> I worry about race conditions in this case, though. I frequently
> archive threads after I've read everything, but I still
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:10:33 -0500, Aaron Ecay wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:29:06 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > Optimize thread archiving by combining all the -inbox tagging operations to
> > a single "notmuch tag" call.
>
> Perhaps I?m missing something, but is there anything preventing
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:29:06 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Optimize thread archiving by combining all the -inbox tagging operations to
> a single "notmuch tag" call.
Perhaps I?m missing something, but is there anything preventing emacs
from just doing the following?
notmuch tag -inbox
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> In the search view it does exactly this.
I worry about race conditions in this case, though. I frequently
archive threads after I've read everything, but I still want to know if
new message to that thread come in. If I attempt to archive
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:29:06 +0200, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
Optimize thread archiving by combining all the -inbox tagging operations to
a single notmuch tag call.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but is there anything preventing emacs
from just doing the following?
notmuch tag -inbox
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:10:33 -0500, Aaron Ecay aarone...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:29:06 +0200, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
Optimize thread archiving by combining all the -inbox tagging operations to
a single notmuch tag call.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but is
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
In the search view it does exactly this.
I worry about race conditions in this case, though. I frequently
archive threads after I've read everything, but I still want to know if
new message to that thread come in. If I
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:38:18 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
In the search view it does exactly this.
I worry about race conditions in this case, though. I frequently
archive threads
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:29:06 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Optimize thread archiving by combining all the -inbox tagging operations to
> a single "notmuch tag" call. Also skip redisplay of tag changes in current
> buffer, as it is immediately killed by the archiving functions.
>
> For threads in
This seems like a good idea.
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:29:06 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On the downside, IIRC Xapian does not perform very well if the query
> (in this case a lot of message-ids OR'd together) is very big. It is
> unknown to me at which point this approach would become slower than
Optimize thread archiving by combining all the -inbox tagging operations to
a single "notmuch tag" call. Also skip redisplay of tag changes in current
buffer, as it is immediately killed by the archiving functions.
For threads in the order of tens or a hundred inbox tagged messages, this
gives a
Optimize thread archiving by combining all the -inbox tagging operations to
a single notmuch tag call. Also skip redisplay of tag changes in current
buffer, as it is immediately killed by the archiving functions.
For threads in the order of tens or a hundred inbox tagged messages, this
gives a
27 matches
Mail list logo
