[PATCH 3/4] config: only set search.exclude_tags to "deleted; spam; " during setup

[Pieter Praet]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:31:23 +0000, Jani Nikula <jani at nikula.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:03:42 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter at praet.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:22:25 +0000, Jani Nikula <jani at nikula.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:05:27 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter at praet.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:53:41 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins at finestructure.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:14:13 +0100, Xavier Maillard <xavier at maillard.im> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:19:03 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter at praet.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > If the 'search.exclude_tags' option is missing from the config file,
> > > > > > > its value is automatically set to "deleted;spam;".  Taking PoLS/DWIM
> > > > > > > into account, this should probably only happen during setup.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This patch is actually Austin Clements' work:
> > > > > > >   id:"20120117203211.GQ16740 at mit.edu"
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I do not think this is a sane default. As I told it in another post. I
> > > > > > do not expect notmuch to skew my search queries not that I specifically
> > > > > > asked.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi, Xavier.  Do you currently mark things as "deleted" or "spam"?  If
> > > > > not, this would have no affect on your search results.  If you do, do
> > > > > you currently expect those messages to show up in searches?  If so, why
> > > > > did you mark them as "deleted" or "spam" to begin with?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I agree with your point in principle (ie. I don't generally want my
> > > > > searches tampered with behind the scenes) but the issue here is about
> > > > > messages that have been explicitly tagged as a form of "trash".  Trash
> > > > > is by it's nature something you're trying to get rid of.  If you wanted
> > > > > to find something in the future, why would you put it in the trash in
> > > > > the first place?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > You definitely have a point, but then again, who are we to assume that
> > > > the terms "deleted" and "spam" have the *exact* same meaning for
> > > > everyone?  (also see id:"8739bbo0br.fsf at praet.org")
> > > 
> > > "deleted" used to be a tag recognized by notmuch, and it used to sync to
> > > the T (trashed) maildir flag. Even if notmuch won't delete any of your
> > > mails now, I don't think you should use "deleted" on messages you want
> > > to see again. Please let's not split hairs about this.
> > > 
> > 
> > Agreed, but it might be nice to make a clear distinction between
> > concepts and the actual tags mapped to them.  I'm not suggestion we
> > redefine the term "deleted", but from an internationalization
> > standpoint, we shouldn't prevent users from mapping e.g. "verwijderd",
> > "supprimé", "gelöscht", ... to the concept "deleted".
> > 
> > > There really should be a definitive list of tags that are special to
> > > lib/cli/emacs (like "inbox", "unread", "deleted", ...), or are
> > > recommended for specific purposes (like "new" as an intermediate tag
> > > before more sophisticated tagging), to avoid prolonged discussions like
> > > this.
> > > 
> > 
> > A list of recommended tags would definitely be nice, as long as they
> > remain recommendations (as opposed to obligations), especially since
> > there's really no reason to designate certain tags as being "special".
> 
> Whether there's reason or not, certain tags are special, for a fact, and
> they are not just recommendations. [...]

My mistake.  Thanks for the correction!


> [...] Perhaps one day someone will
> contribute patches to make them configurable, and separate the concepts
> from the actual tags, but in the mean time it will be easier to just
> document them for what they are.
> 

Agreed.


> BR,
> Jani.


Peace

-- 
Pieter