Subject: [sup-talk] inconsistencies and new user confusion

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Pimlott)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:33:03 -0700

I'm making my second try at switching to sup (though the first was
pretty half-assed).  I'm in that state where too many things are
happening that I don't understand, so I need some clarification on how
things are supposed to work.  I'm using the mainline as of a few days
ago, where the last checkin is may 4.

There seem to be serious consistency issues.  For example, I applied a
label "cal" to a thread.  I press "L" to list labels, and it's not
there.  I sync the mailbox, unsure if this is needed.  (It shouldn't be,
of course--if it is, I hope this is intended to be fixed, perhaps with
the undo work.)  Now, "cal" shows up in the label list, but with a
message count less than the number I labeled.  At some point down the
line, after more activity, it gets the count right.

Similarly, I have now a mailbox in which I deleted a thread of 2
messages, then added a reply to that mailbox (from outside sup).  In my
inbox, I only see the reply, and the labels are "inbox".  Shouldn't the
thread always "stick together"?  If I switch to the "deleted" label, I
see the expected thread of three messages, but on all three the labels
are "deleted, inbox".  I had another case recently in all messages in a
thread had labels "deleted, inbox", but the thread still showed up in my
inbox.  Any idea what's going on?

Andrew

---

From: [email-masked] (Edward Z. Yang)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 01:23:49 -0400

Excerpts from marc.hartstein's message of Wed May 13 00:23:45 -0400 2009:
> 'deleted' means "don't show this to me even if there are new messages in
> the thread.

I was under the impression that "killing" a thread was what did that?

Cheers,
Edward

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Pimlott)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 07:53:11 -0700

> 'deleted' means "don't show this to me even if there are new messages in

Is this the intended behavior?  Unfortunately, I'm seeing several
variations.  I have a thread now, which I deleted then added a new
message to, and some but not all of the previously deleted messages are
back in my inbox.  If I quit sup and restart, only the new message is in
my inbox.  As I said, the labels shown in the message headers are
inconsistent as well.  In this case, both the deleted messages and the
new message had the deleted label, which contradicts them showing up in
my inbox.  After a quit and restart, the new message loses the deleted
label when viewed from my inbox.  But if I do a label search for
deleted, the whole thread is there--and even the new message has the
deleted label.

Andrew

---

From: [email-masked] (William Morgan)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 12:17:33 -0700

Reformatted excerpts from Andrew Pimlott's message of 2009-05-12:
> there.

Can you try this again? There was a bug with new labels, where they were
disappearing from the label list under certain conditions (though not
from the index).

Note that that list only counts messages.

> I sync the mailbox, unsure if this is needed.  (It shouldn't be, of
> course--if it is, I hope this is intended to be fixed, perhaps with
> the undo work.)

Currently it is needed. It would be possible to avoid it, with some work
(Sup has an event broadcast mechanism for things like this), though I
think it will be difficult to maintain the "<label> AND unread" counts.
-- 
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>

---

From: [email-masked] (William Morgan)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 12:19:49 -0700

Reformatted excerpts from Edward Z. Yang's message of 2009-05-12:
> > 'deleted' means "don't show this to me even if there are new
> > messages in the thread.
> 

Deleted messages don't show up under normal searches. (You have to
explicitly add label:deleted). Killed threads show up in searches,
just not in your inbox.

Killing a thread means "I might find this conversation useful one day,
but stop bugging me about it now."
-- 
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Pimlott)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 07:46:07 -0700

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:17:33PM -0700, William Morgan wrote:
> Can you try this again?

What branch?  No change on mainline.

> think it will be difficult to maintain the "<label> AND unread" counts.

What I'm getting at is, why not keep the index up-to-date at all times?
The only reason I see not to is so the user can say "oops" and quit
without saving.  But that's what undo is for.  (Or transactions.)

Andrew

---

From: [email-masked] (William Morgan)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 08:24:42 -0700

> What branch?  No change on mainline.

Sorry, the "next" branch.

> What I'm getting at is, why not keep the index up-to-date at all
> times?  The only reason I see not to is so the user can say "oops" and
> quit without saving.  But that's what undo is for.  (Or transactions.)

This is certainly an option in the future. We've used "$" because until
recently there hasn't been an undo, and because it gives me fond
memories of Mutt. Once undo is fleshed out a bit more, auto-syncing
could certainly be an option.
-- 
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>