[PATCH] remove message archiving from show-advance-and-archive
dme at dme.org
Wed Jun 9 08:36:53 PDT 2010
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:25:04 -0400, Jameson Rollins <jrollins at finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:12:54 +0100, David Edmondson <dme at dme.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:49:43 -0400, Jameson Rollins <jrollins at 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 of
> > > advancing through messages to read them. Archiving in general should
> > > be a separate operation that one does explicitly. This patch just
> > > renames the advance function "notmuch-show-advance", and removes the
> > > archiving of a thread when the end of the thread is reached.
> > This is great, but what if I want the current behaviour?
> Well, you could do like I do now, and write a function that does what
> you want and bind it to whatever key you want. But I really don't think
> the current behavior should be the default.
I'm not overly worried about the default behaviour, just with what
behaviour is easily available.
> The current behavior completely mixes the meaning of "unread" and
> "inbox". If there is no difference between the meaning of those tags,
> then why have separate tags for them?
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 no longer 'unread'.
> I think we've done some good work in making the "unread" tag correspond
> reasonably well to actually viewing a message. We have lots of good
> automatic removal of that tag when messages are viewed. But I really
> feel strongly that "unread" is the *only* tag that we should be handling
> in an automated way like that. We should really leave it to the user to
> handle all other tags explicitly how they see fit. I certainly don't
> want every message I read automatically removed from my inbox.
> If you feel really strongly about this in the other direction, I would
> like to understand why. If we can't resolve, then maybe a vote?
Maybe you could submit a patch which allows a user to choose the
behaviour with a customisation variable? (Though I'd expect the value of
that variable to preserve backward compatible behaviour until Carl says
David Edmondson, http://dme.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the notmuch