On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:19:06 -0800, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> Elsewhere in the thread Jameson Rollins wrote:
> > I should have mentioned in my previous mail that I think this tool is
> > a great idea, and I plan on using it.  I just hope that all of it's
> > functionality will be integrated directly into notmuch itself.
> 
> I think that's the open question still. How much of this kind of
> functionality do we integrate into notmuch itself. I don't know the
> answer to that question yet, but I'm quite happy to see people
> experimenting with doing scripts like this on top of notmuch already.
> 
> I do know that I want to do thing to make such scripting easier,
> (independent of whether the current functionality gets folded into
> notmuch).

Hey, Carl.  Yeah, this was an old post and there's been lots of
discussion about it.  I'm certainly more flexible about my position now
than I think I was originally.

In fact, I actually gave up on syncing notmuch and maildir, and am
basically punting on maildir altogether.  This is slightly problematic
because notmuch is still missing some key features so I occasionally
have to use other mailers to achieve certain things (especially OpenPGP
stuff).  I worry about it down the line as well, if I ever have to use
another mailer for any reason.  All mail I've received since my switch
to notmuch will show up as "unread" in maildir readers.

I think notmuch wrapper scripts like notmuchsync are going to be crucial
for notmuch down the line, so I definitely agree that doing everything
possible to make it easier for them is a very good thing.  I am using
notmuchsync for deleting "delete" tagged messages, for which it's very
useful.  It's pretty slow, though, which I've been chalking up to the
fact that it has to parse the notmuch "show" output.  Once notmuch can
output just the paths to messages matching search results that should
get much much faster.

jamie.