On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:54:57 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:55:49 -0400, Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> > I actually submitted this patch because there was noise on #notmuch
> > about people (including from cworth) not liking the default behavior
> > where the "inbox" tag is removed by the advance function.
> 
> For the record, I wrote the current behavior for my own use, so I've
> been pretty happy with it.

I'm still not understanding the usage pattern here.  Do you really want
to archive all threads after you've read them?  If so, what's the
difference between the "unread" and "inbox" tags in your work flow?

dme's response was "if I don't want the message archived, then I hit 'q'
instead of ' '".  But it seems to make more sense to me to say "if I
want the message archived, I just hit 'a'".

> I suppose one option here would be a customizable variable that controls
> what happens when trying to advance "past" the last message, (do
> nothing, advance to next thread, archive current thread and advance to
> next thread)?

We could, but I think it adds a lot of unnecessary complication.  I
wonder if there's not a better way to handle the flow that you guys are
advocating, rather than using notmuch-show-advance-and-archive.

But I have a stop-gap solution.  What if we provide both
notmuch-show-advance and notmuch-show-advance-and-archive, with the
default being notmuch-show-advance?  That way, if folks want to use the
old behavior, they can just set

(define-key notmuch-show-mode-map " " 'notmuch-show-advance-and-archive)

in their emacs config file.  If people agree on that solution, then I
can submit a revamped patch.

jamie.