On 2010-06-09, 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...
Which will open other cans of worms :-)
Have fun splitting the below thread between msg 1 and 2. Where will
> For that, I think I want the current '|' binding to pipe the current
> message and then a new binding ("M-|" ?) to pipe every (open) message in
> the thread.
+1
> Which makes me think that other operations should work similarly. '+'
> and '-' should change tags on the current message (as they
For that, I think I want the current '|' binding to pipe the current
message and then a new binding (M-| ?) to pipe every (open) message in
the thread.
+1
Which makes me think that other operations should work similarly. '+'
and '-' should change tags on the current message (as they do
On 2010-06-09, 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...
Which will open other cans of worms :-)
Have fun splitting the below thread between msg 1 and 2. Where will msg
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 13:29:46 -0400, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> I'm advocating that *only* the "unread" tag ever be automatically
> removed in the emacs UI when doing anything other than explicitly
> removing tags (eg. like just opening a message for viewing, or browsing
> through a thread, etc.).
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:55:49 -0400, Jameson Rollins 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
> function to do that.
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:49:43 -0400, Jameson Rollins 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 of
> advancing through
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:20:47 -0700, Dirk Hohndel
wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:50:15 -0700, 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
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:50:15 -0700, Carl Worth 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 '|' binding to pipe
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
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:54:57 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:55:49 -0400, Jameson Rollins 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
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
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:18:42 +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:55:49 -0400, Jameson Rollins 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
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:20:21 -0400, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:20:47 -0700, Dirk Hohndel
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:50:15 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > I really like this. It's consistent and I'm sure I'll get used to it
> > quickly. The only question now is "all
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:36:53 +0100, David Edmondson 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 they are
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:12:54 +0100, David Edmondson 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
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
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:55:49 -0400, Jameson Rollins 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 record, I wrote the current
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:49:43 -0400, Jameson Rollins 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 of
> advancing through
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
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 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
