From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wmorgan-sup@masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:41:49 -0700 Subject: [sup-talk] Ignore killed messages in U screen In-Reply-To: <1252010283-sup-4453@yoom.home.cworth.org> References: <1251387376-sup-7180@javelin> <1251388546-sup-7744@javelin> <1252005520-sup-9555@zyrg.net> <1252010283-sup-4453@yoom.home.cworth.org> Message-ID: <1252074924-sup-1994@masanjin.net> Reformatted excerpts from Carl Worth's message of 2009-09-03: > But the above discussion of "killed" suggests that the mechanics > aren't at all like that. But that instead, labels are applied to > individual messages, and searches match individual messages and then > construct threads from the results. Is that more or less how things > work? Yes. That's why killed is special; it requires work at threading time to drop threads in which any message has a killed label, regardless of whether that's the message that matched the query. > So is there a mismatch between the philosophy and the mechanics, or > did I just misunderstand the philosophy? Not sure. Maybe both. :) The philosophy is more about the UI, IMO, than specific implementation details (though obviosuly there's some trickle-up). The other way to implement this, FWIW, is to have labels automatically spread to all messages in a thread when they're applied. I think that is probably a better implementation, though it increases the cost at labeling time. I've been toying with this idea in the sup server code. > If not, it seems like it would be possible for a query like > "!label:killed" to do exactly what is wanted without needing any > special treatment for killed internally. I think the above implementation would allow this. -- William