It was <2020-07-02 czw 15:55>, when Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Wed 2020-06-24 21:44:01 +1000, Peter Wang wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:22:50 +0200 Lukasz Stelmach <l.stelmach@samsung.com> wrote:
>>> It was <2020-06-20 sob 12:53>, when Reto wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:40:49PM +0200, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
>>>>> Having "setup" in the set requires entering three instad of two
>>>>> characters for "search". Since "setup" is rearly used it makes
>>>>> little sense to have it in the set and cripple UX for much more
>>>>> frequently used "search".
>>>>
>>>> I very much disagree with this patch.  The completions should
>>>> contain all possible values, saving a single keystroke is certainly
>>>> not a valid reason to remove a valid option from the completions.
>>>>
>>>> Write an alias into your bashrc if that bothers you so
>>>> much... Then you can save much more keystrokes.
>>> 
>>> I already have several aliases covering most of my use cases,
>>> however, I still use "notmuch search" from time to time and I came
>>> to a conclusion expressed in this patch. Of course, as a random
>>> user, I can only suggest and by no means insist on applying it.
>>
>> Another possibility may be to rename "notmuch setup" to "notmuch
>> init", treating "setup" as a deprecated synonym for "init". The
>> completions would include "init" but not "setup".
>
> I sympathize with everyone struggling with the first-world problems in
> this thread. :P
>
> If i had to choose between the status quo and Lukasz's suggestion of
> not completing "notmuch setup", i'd choose the status quo.
>
[...]
>
> Overall, i value consistency and completeness and i would not like to
> see the tab completion be either an inconsistent or incomplete
> representation of the options available to the user from the command
> line.

How about checking for $NOTMUCH_CONFIG and adding "setup" if the file
does not exist?

-- 
Łukasz Stelmach
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics