Tom Hirschowitz <tom.hirschowitz@univ-smb.fr> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> The order returned by notmuch with the oldest-first option looks wrong
> to me: as far as I can see, threads are sorted according to their oldest
> unread message, but in any case, it is not the converse of the
> newest-first ordering.
>
> Is this a bug? And if not, how hard would it be to add an option for
> getting the converse of newest-first?
>

There is the following documentation in notmuch-search(1).

     Note: The thread order will be distinct between these two options (beyond being sim‐
     ply reversed). When sorting by oldest-first the threads will be sorted by the oldest
     message  in each thread, but when sorting by newest-first the threads will be sorted
     by the newest message in each thread.

If what you are seeing is consistent with that, then I guess it's
officially not a bug.

I haven't looked at the code in question recently enough to estimate the
difficulty of adding another sort order. Can you explain why it's an
important feature for you?

d



_______________________________________________
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch