On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:41:15 +0000, Jani Nikula <j...@nikula.org> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 20:12:59 -0500, Austin Clements <amdra...@mit.edu> wrote: > > Quoth Aaron Ecay on Jan 08 at 7:56 pm: > > > On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:16 +0200, Jani Nikula <j...@nikula.org> wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > In the show view it only modifies the messages that are currently > > > > visible. This is to make sure you don't accidentally archive things that > > > > have arrived after refreshing the buffer. I think this is safest. > > > > > > Hmm. Perhaps it would make sense to add a check in the search view that > > > the thread being archived[1] has the same number of messages as it did > > > when the buffer was constructed. (The information on how many messages > > > the thread has is in the buffer; we would then compare this to the result > > > of “notmuch count thread:000foo” when the user requests to archive.) If > > > the counts don’t match, the interface should show a message in the echo > > > area and (probably) refuse to do the tagging. > > > > That sounds like a clever workaround. > > The downside is that there's still a race condition: you could get new > messages between checking the number of messages in the thread and > tagging. The window for error would be much smaller than now, but it's > still there. (You could check afterwards if this happened, and notify > the user, "oooops, I just tagged N messages more than you intended"...)
And this could also be "false alarm" if the the new messages arrived after tagging but before checking... > > J. Tomi _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch