Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] search: Support automatic tag exclusions

2012-01-18 Thread David Edmondson
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:32:11 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: Quoth David Edmondson on Jan 17 at 9:08 am: On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:16:24 -0700, Jeremy Nickurak jer...@nickurak.ca wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:28, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: Having deleted

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] search: Support automatic tag exclusions

2012-01-18 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:38:23 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote: Something must create the initial configuration file if none exists. I'd be okay with that code adding 'deleted' and 'spam' to the excluded list. This would mean that an existing user would see no change without taking

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] search: Support automatic tag exclusions

2012-01-18 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:52:52 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote: I agree that as long as no keys are pre-bound it will make little difference. That just transfers the discussion to the thread about adding the bindings, which seems silly. I think that's ok. The tag exclusion is in,

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] search: Support automatic tag exclusions

2012-01-17 Thread David Edmondson
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:16:24 -0700, Jeremy Nickurak jer...@nickurak.ca wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:28, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: Having deleted and spam as default settings in the configuration file might be more reasonable. If I read correctly: 1) If no exclude

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] search: Support automatic tag exclusions

2012-01-17 Thread Austin Clements
Quoth David Edmondson on Jan 17 at 9:08 am: On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:16:24 -0700, Jeremy Nickurak jer...@nickurak.ca wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:28, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: Having deleted and spam as default settings in the configuration file might be more

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] search: Support automatic tag exclusions

2012-01-16 Thread David Edmondson
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:40:26 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: This patch looks fine. Philosophical UI discussion to follow: On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:07:04 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: +if (notmuch_config_get_auto_exclude_tags (config, tmp)

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] search: Support automatic tag exclusions

2012-01-16 Thread Austin Clements
Quoth David Edmondson on Jan 16 at 9:12 am: On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:40:26 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: This patch looks fine. Philosophical UI discussion to follow: On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:07:04 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: +

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] search: Support automatic tag exclusions

2012-01-16 Thread Jeremy Nickurak
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:28, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: Quoth David Edmondson on Jan 16 at  9:12 am: Having deleted and spam as default settings in the configuration file might be more reasonable. Sorry, I'm confused.  Are you saying deleted;spam should or should not be the

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] search: Support automatic tag exclusions

2012-01-16 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:18:18 -0700, Jeremy Nickurak not-m...@trk.nickurak.ca wrote: 1) If no exclude options are in the config file, none should be used. 2) On notmuch setup, deleted and spam should be added to .notmuch-config That's correct. jamie. pgpte3TFLdDYd.pgp Description: PGP

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] search: Support automatic tag exclusions

2012-01-14 Thread Jameson Graef Rollins
This patch looks fine. Philosophical UI discussion to follow: On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:07:04 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: +if (notmuch_config_get_auto_exclude_tags (config, tmp) == NULL) { + const char *tags[] = { deleted, spam }; +

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] search: Support automatic tag exclusions

2012-01-14 Thread Austin Clements
Quoth Jameson Graef Rollins on Jan 14 at 3:40 pm: This patch looks fine. Philosophical UI discussion to follow: On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:07:04 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote: +if (notmuch_config_get_auto_exclude_tags (config, tmp) == NULL) { + const char *tags[] = {