David Bremner writes:
> Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan writes:
>
>>
>> If I startup notmuch and then do a M-x notmuch-search and then *, I see
>> the messages with the newest on the top. But if I instead, startup
>> notmuch and then hit "s", I see that the new messages are at the
>> bottom. The
Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan writes:
>
> If I startup notmuch and then do a M-x notmuch-search and then *, I see
> the messages with the newest on the top. But if I instead, startup
> notmuch and then hit "s", I see that the new messages are at the
> bottom. The value of
Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan r...@rkrishnan.org writes:
If I startup notmuch and then do a M-x notmuch-search and then *, I see
the messages with the newest on the top. But if I instead, startup
notmuch and then hit s, I see that the new messages are at the
bottom. The value of
David Bremner da...@tethera.net writes:
Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan r...@rkrishnan.org writes:
If I startup notmuch and then do a M-x notmuch-search and then *, I see
the messages with the newest on the top. But if I instead, startup
notmuch and then hit s, I see that the new messages are at
Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan writes:
> If I startup notmuch and then do a M-x notmuch-search and then *, I see
> the messages with the newest on the top. But if I instead, startup
> notmuch and then hit "s", I see that the new messages are at the
> bottom. The value of notmuch-search-oldest-first
Hi,
I see something strange when I do a search with M-x notmuch-search from
the notmuch-hello vs hitting "s" on the notmuch-hello buffer.
If I startup notmuch and then do a M-x notmuch-search and then *, I see
the messages with the newest on the top. But if I instead, startup
notmuch and then
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:49:23 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> Writing code to manipulate and use a structure like this would obviously
> be some effort, but it doesn't seem overly difficult. More challenging
> would be the interface to allow the user to customise the structure to
> express their
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:45:20 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> So I think what we actually want here is an additional member for our
> saved-search tuple which indicates the desired search order for that
> particular search. That's the only way I see to support a single user
> who w
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:45:20 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
So I think what we actually want here is an additional member for our
saved-search tuple which indicates the desired search order for that
particular search. That's the only way I see to support a single user
who wants
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:49:23 +0100, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
Writing code to manipulate and use a structure like this would obviously
be some effort, but it doesn't seem overly difficult. More challenging
would be the interface to allow the user to customise the structure to
express
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> Keith happens to use saved searches only for subsets of his inbox and in
> that case, it makes a lot of sense to see the results of all of these
> messages in an oldest-first order.
Hi,
I used saved searches mostly this way until a few days ago, when I
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
Keith happens to use saved searches only for subsets of his inbox and in
that case, it makes a lot of sense to see the results of all of these
messages in an oldest-first order.
Hi,
I used saved searches mostly this way until a few days ago, when I wrote
ith the newest
message first, (which is the default search-results order after all).
So I think what we actually want here is an additional member for our
saved-search tuple which indicates the desired search order for that
particular search. That's the only way I see to support a single user
who w
first, (which is the default search-results order after all).
So I think what we actually want here is an additional member for our
saved-search tuple which indicates the desired search order for that
particular search. That's the only way I see to support a single user
who wants to take advantage
On Mon, 3 May 2010 13:58:27 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> I use 'saved searches' as a folder mechanism and want them to be shown
> oldest first. Otherwise, while searching for messages normally, I want
> to see the most recent messages first. This patch makes these two
> default search orders
I use 'saved searches' as a folder mechanism and want them to be shown
oldest first. Otherwise, while searching for messages normally, I want
to see the most recent messages first. This patch makes these two
default search orders separate.
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard
---
emacs/notmuch-hello.el
I use 'saved searches' as a folder mechanism and want them to be shown
oldest first. Otherwise, while searching for messages normally, I want
to see the most recent messages first. This patch makes these two
default search orders separate.
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com
---
mode to use the right search order when we select
> a folder. Also the notmuch command is fixed to use the right ordering.
Thanks for the updated commit message. Unfortunately, I'd already
committed the earlier version of this patch.
I generally make passes over my queue of patches to revi
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:20:59 +0530, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" wrote:
> Make sure we use notmuch-search-oldest-first to decide the how
> the search result should be displayed. This helps to set the
> value to nil and have latest mail shown first
Thanks. This is pushed now.
-Carl
Make sure we use notmuch-search-oldest-first to decide the how
the search result should be displayed. This helps to set the
value to nil and have latest mail shown first. This also fix the
notmuch-folder mode to use the right search order when we select
a folder. Also the notmuch command is fixed
Make sure we use notmuch-search-oldest-first to decide the how
the search result should be displayed. This helps to set the
value to nil and have latest mail shown first
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V
---
notmuch.el |7 ---
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git
21 matches
Mail list logo
