On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:14:05 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote: Non-text part: multipart/signed > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:31:31 +0000, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote: > > Add a pseudo saved search that matches all the mail that no other saved > > search matches. Add new customization option notmuch-saved-searches-nomatch > > to enable and name the pseudo saved search. > > Hi, Jani. I haven't looked too closely at these patches yet, although > they seem to look ok at first glance. However, I would like to argue > *against* using new customization variables for the names of certain > static saved searches. For instance I don't see the point of the > "notmuch-saved-searches-nomatch" and "notmuch-tags-nomatch" > customization variables. Do people *really* need to be able to > customize those names? Why not just pick a sensible name and go with > it? Hi, I didn't add the customization specifically to customize the name, but rather to be able to switch the feature on/off. I felt that people might want to customize that. And while at it, customizing the name in the same variable seemed like a good idea. It's probably not desirable to collide with whatever search/tag names people might use. So to clarify, do you prefer having on/off switches, or just enabling this without customization at all? Personally I'd shy away from the latter, but I guess it depends on how useful vs. distracting people find this. > Customization is great, but if there's too much the code and > customization UI become overly cluttered and hard to parse. Agreed. Jani