Mark Walters writes:
>>> I haven't tracked through all the logic of the existing algorithm for
>>> this case. But I don't like hearing that notmuch constructs different
>>> threads for the same messages presented in different orders. This sounds
>>> like a bug separate from what we've discussed
Quoth Mark Walters on Apr 21 at 8:20 am:
>
> >> I haven't tracked through all the logic of the existing algorithm for
> >> this case. But I don't like hearing that notmuch constructs different
> >> threads for the same messages presented in different orders. This sounds
> >> like a bug separate
>> I haven't tracked through all the logic of the existing algorithm for
>> this case. But I don't like hearing that notmuch constructs different
>> threads for the same messages presented in different orders. This sounds
>> like a bug separate from what we've discussed above.
I think I have
I haven't tracked through all the logic of the existing algorithm for
this case. But I don't like hearing that notmuch constructs different
threads for the same messages presented in different orders. This sounds
like a bug separate from what we've discussed above.
I think I have now found
Quoth Mark Walters on Apr 21 at 8:20 am:
I haven't tracked through all the logic of the existing algorithm for
this case. But I don't like hearing that notmuch constructs different
threads for the same messages presented in different orders. This sounds
like a bug separate from what
Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu writes:
But let me propose an idea I've been kicking around for a while: ghost
message documents. Rather than using user metadata for tracking these
missing messages, use regular documents with the exact same terms we
use now for message IDs and thread IDs,
Carl Worth writes:
>
> Another idea would be to trigger specifically on common forms. Judging
> From the samples in this particular thread, it seems like a workable
> heuristic would be:
>
> If the In-Reply-To header begins with '<':
>
> Parse that initial portion as a message
Quoth myself on Apr 20 at 12:48 pm:
> Quoth Andrei POPESCU on Apr 20 at 12:04 am:
> > On Sb, 19 apr 14, 18:52:02, Eric wrote:
> > >
> > > This may not actually be any help, but both hypermail and mhonarc agree
> > > that two messages form a separate thread from the rest. I believe that
> > > the
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014, Carl Worth wrote:
> Mark Walters writes:
>> I have done dome debugging of this.
>
> Thanks for looking closely, Mark!
>
>> There is a patch below which fixes this test case but who knows what
>> it breaks! Please DO NOT apply unless someone who knows this code says
>> it's
Quoth Andrei POPESCU on Apr 20 at 12:04 am:
> On Sb, 19 apr 14, 18:52:02, Eric wrote:
> >
> > This may not actually be any help, but both hypermail and mhonarc agree
> > that two messages form a separate thread from the rest. I believe that
> > the latter, at least, is the JWZ algorithm.
>
>
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014, David Bremner wrote:
> Gregor Zattler mentioned some problems with threading at
>
>id:20120126004024.GA13704 at shi.workgroup
>
> After some off list discussions, I believe I have a smaller test case.
>
> The attached maildir contains 24 messages from the org mode
On Sb, 19 apr 14, 18:52:02, Eric wrote:
>
> This may not actually be any help, but both hypermail and mhonarc agree
> that two messages form a separate thread from the rest. I believe that
> the latter, at least, is the JWZ algorithm.
mutt concurs.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Gregor Zattler mentioned some problems with threading at
id:20120126004024.GA13704@shi.workgroup
After some off list discussions, I believe I have a smaller test case.
The attached maildir contains 24 messages from the org
Mark Walters markwalters1...@gmail.com writes:
I have done dome debugging of this.
Thanks for looking closely, Mark!
There is a patch below which fixes this test case but who knows what
it breaks! Please DO NOT apply unless someone who knows this code says
it's OK.
I wrote much of the
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
Mark Walters markwalters1...@gmail.com writes:
I have done dome debugging of this.
Thanks for looking closely, Mark!
There is a patch below which fixes this test case but who knows what
it breaks! Please DO NOT apply unless someone
Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org writes:
Another idea would be to trigger specifically on common forms. Judging
From the samples in this particular thread, it seems like a workable
heuristic would be:
If the In-Reply-To header begins with '':
Parse that initial portion as a
Quoth Andrei POPESCU on Apr 20 at 12:04 am:
On Sb, 19 apr 14, 18:52:02, Eric wrote:
This may not actually be any help, but both hypermail and mhonarc agree
that two messages form a separate thread from the rest. I believe that
the latter, at least, is the JWZ algorithm.
mutt concurs.
Quoth myself on Apr 20 at 12:48 pm:
Quoth Andrei POPESCU on Apr 20 at 12:04 am:
On Sb, 19 apr 14, 18:52:02, Eric wrote:
This may not actually be any help, but both hypermail and mhonarc agree
that two messages form a separate thread from the rest. I believe that
the latter, at
Gregor Zattler mentioned some problems with threading at
id:20120126004024.GA13704 at shi.workgroup
After some off list discussions, I believe I have a smaller test case.
The attached maildir contains 24 messages from the org mode list.
According to notmuch, these form one thread, but
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:33:36 +0900, David Bremner wrote:
>
> Gregor Zattler mentioned some problems with threading at
>
>id:20120126004024.GA13704 at shi.workgroup
>
> After some off list discussions, I believe I have a smaller test case.
>
> The attached maildir contains 24 messages
Gregor Zattler mentioned some problems with threading at
id:20120126004024.GA13704@shi.workgroup
After some off list discussions, I believe I have a smaller test case.
The attached maildir contains 24 messages from the org mode list.
According to notmuch, these form one thread, but I
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:33:36 +0900, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
Gregor Zattler mentioned some problems with threading at
id:20120126004024.GA13704@shi.workgroup
After some off list discussions, I believe I have a smaller test case.
The attached maildir contains 24
On Sb, 19 apr 14, 18:52:02, Eric wrote:
This may not actually be any help, but both hypermail and mhonarc agree
that two messages form a separate thread from the rest. I believe that
the latter, at least, is the JWZ algorithm.
mutt concurs.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it
23 matches
Mail list logo
