[Patch v3 0/3] emacs: show: redesign unread/read logic

[David Edmondson]

On Wed, May 07 2014, Mark Walters wrote:
> A message is marked read if:
>
> 1) if you navigate to a message using n/p (next/prev open message) 
>
> 2) if you navigate to it using N/P (next/prev message) regardless of
> whether the message is open or closed.
>
> 3) if you go to it using n.s.next-matching-message (not bound by
> default) whether message is open or closed.
>
> 4) when you enter a buffer and notmuch goes to the first open message.
>
> but not marked read in cases like:
>
> 1) opening a message
>
> 2) viewing or entering a message using other notmuch navigation such as
> notmuch-show-advance and friends (bound to space)

My experience is that this removes the 'unread' tag.

> 3) viewing or entering a message using arrow keys, page-up page-down,
> ctrl-v mouse clicks etc
>
> Personally, I think marking a closed message read is a bug,

Agreed.

> and not marking it read when opening it is too

Agreed.

> (at least in many cases).

I would be happy with just these fixed (i.e. the current behaviour with
those two bug fixes). My typical use is to move around a thread using
Space, Backspace, n, p, N and P with RET, M-RET and C-u M-RET to
manipulate open/closed state (i.e. not the normal emacs movement
commands to move).

> The other problem with the current approach (in my view) is that if
> you try to use the navigation commands non-interactively then messages
> end up being marked read, even if they are never displayed to the
> user.

In what cases does this happen? (Not arguing, just not fully
understanding.)

> Linking into the post-command-hook means that this should "just work".
>
> Questions:  What does it mean for a message to be the current message?
> Is it just point being in the message?

This makes sense to me, other than perhaps "point being in an _open_
message". I don't want moving point through a closed message with C-n to
remove the 'unread' tag.

> Would you be happy with a message being marked read when point entered
> the message? That could be done from the post-command-hook
> infrastructure to fix some of the problems mentioned above.
>
> I think that is likely that people will disagree on how they want this
> to work so I would like to try and make it customisable so I would
> definitely be interested to see if I can get the behaviour you would
> like from this infrastructure (or something similar).
>
> Best wishes
>
> Mark
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 310 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20140508/b98770c1/attachment-0001.pgp>