On Wed, 09 Jun 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> That would highlight the current 'a' as out of place since it's
> currently archiving every message in the thread. So I'd then fix it to
> be 'a' for the current message and "M-a" for every (open) message in the
> thread.
>
> What do people think of that?
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:52:42 +0100, Matt Fleming
wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:14:17 +0200, Michal Sojka
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > these patches implement synchronization between maildir flags and
> > notmuch tags. The synchronization can be configured to not happen at
> > all (default), to
On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:14:17 +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> these patches implement synchronization between maildir flags and
> notmuch tags. The synchronization can be configured to not happen at
> all (default), to set/unset tags when importing new (or new and
> renamed) messages and to
e more. Go for it.
dme.
--
David Edmondson, http://dme.org
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100609/0ef69d9c/attachment.pgp>
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100609/d87c9d2d/attachment-0001.pgp>
but what if I want the current behaviour?
dme.
--
David Edmondson, http://dme.org
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/not
mie.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100609/284a41ca/attachment.pgp>
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100609/d3866f39/attachment.pgp>
On 9 June 2010 14:20, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
[...]
> Oh - and I really want a way to do surgery on threads. Merge threads to
> fix Blackberry users breaking threads. And split threads for
> hijackers...
I remember this being mentioned by Carl in the list some time ago, it
would be a great feature
tch.
jamie.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100609/ecd9472d/attachment.pgp>
On 9 June 2010 13:54, Carl Worth wrote:
[...]
> But I have seen enough people complain about it that I've been convinced
> that something is wrong about it. I'm not yet sure what the right answer
> is. But if we at least have separate commands for separate actions, then
> hopefully it wouldn't be
On 9 June 2010 13:50, Carl Worth wrote:
[...]
> Which makes me think that other operations should work similarly. '+'
> and '-' should change tags on the current message (as they do currently)
> and then new "M-+" and "M--" could change tags on all (open) messages in
> the thread.
>
> That would
y wish.
jamie.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100609/da07a529/attachment.pgp>
-
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100609/dda84d44/attachment-0001.pgp>
vidual
users. If a user wants to do something special, they can make their own
function to do that.
jamie.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuc
maybe a vote?
jamie.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100609/ed7801f3/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:50:15 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:49:43 -0400, Jameson Rollins finestructure.net> wrote:
> > The function to advance through threads with the space bar is useful.
> > However, the current implementation also archives messages. The idea
> > of
sc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100609/c829b424/attachment.pgp>
xt attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20100609/2e73b693/attachment.pgp>
otmuch-show-advance-and-archive'."
+`notmuch-show-advance'."
(interactive)
(let ((start-of-message (notmuch-show-message-top))
(start-of-window (window-start)))
--
1.7.1
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type:
Without this little patch notmuch fails with current git if there's a
saved search that has zero results
diff --git a/emacs/notmuch-hello.el b/emacs/notmuch-hello.el
index f5d061b..7c32f7c 100644
--- a/emacs/notmuch-hello.el
+++ b/emacs/notmuch-hello.el
@@ -112,6 +112,8 @@ Typically \",\" in the
The function to advance through threads with the space bar is useful.
However, the current implementation also archives messages. The idea
of archiving a message should not be intertwined with the processes of
advancing through messages to read them. Archiving in general should
be a separate
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:49:43 -0400, Jameson Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net
wrote:
The function to advance through threads with the space bar is useful.
However, the current implementation also archives messages. The idea
of archiving a message should not be intertwined with the processes
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:12:54 +0100, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:49:43 -0400, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
The function to advance through threads with the space bar is useful.
However, the current implementation also archives messages. The
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:25:04 -0400, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:12:54 +0100, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:49:43 -0400, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
The function to advance through threads with
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:36:53 +0100, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
They are clearly different. If I read a thread with 'space' the 'unread'
tag is removed from the messages as I pass them by. I can then 'q' from
the thread and the messages are not archived ('inbox' is not removed),
but
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:55:49 -0400, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
I would like to push it back the other way. Having specific tags
modified by specific commands is something particular to individual
users. If a user wants to do something special, they can make their own
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:18:42 +0100, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:55:49 -0400, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
I would like to push it back the other way. Having specific tags
modified by specific commands is something particular to individual
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:49:43 -0400, Jameson Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net
wrote:
The function to advance through threads with the space bar is useful.
However, the current implementation also archives messages. The idea
of archiving a message should not be intertwined with the processes
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:55:49 -0400, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
I actually submitted this patch because there was noise on #notmuch
about people (including from cworth) not liking the default behavior
where the inbox tag is removed by the advance function.
For the
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:50:15 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:49:43 -0400, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
The function to advance through threads with the space bar is useful.
However, the current implementation also archives messages. The
On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:14:17 +0200, Michal Sojka sojk...@fel.cvut.cz wrote:
Hi,
these patches implement synchronization between maildir flags and
notmuch tags. The synchronization can be configured to not happen at
all (default), to set/unset tags when importing new (or new and
renamed)
On 9 June 2010 13:50, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
[...]
Which makes me think that other operations should work similarly. '+'
and '-' should change tags on the current message (as they do currently)
and then new M-+ and M-- could change tags on all (open) messages in
the thread.
That
On 9 June 2010 13:54, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
[...]
But I have seen enough people complain about it that I've been convinced
that something is wrong about it. I'm not yet sure what the right answer
is. But if we at least have separate commands for separate actions, then
hopefully
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:54:57 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:55:49 -0400, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
I actually submitted this patch because there was noise on #notmuch
about people (including from cworth) not liking the default
On 9 June 2010 14:20, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org wrote:
[...]
Oh - and I really want a way to do surgery on threads. Merge threads to
fix Blackberry users breaking threads. And split threads for
hijackers...
I remember this being mentioned by Carl in the list some time ago, it
would be
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:50:15 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
Meanwhile, I'm currently working on support for piping a whole thread of
messages as an mbox to a process, (mostly getting bogged down in trying
to fix mbox support in git).
For that, I think I want the current '|'
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:20:47 -0700, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:50:15 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
That would highlight the current 'a' as out of place since it's
currently archiving every message in the thread. So I'd then fix it to
be 'a'
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:20:21 -0400, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:20:47 -0700, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:50:15 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
I really like this. It's consistent and I'm sure I'll
39 matches
Mail list logo
