Bug#533439: Please consider this a regression
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 08:35:09AM +, Antonio Radici wrote: > Hi Kumar, > thanks for your report, we already know that some users are quite > annoyed by the new behaviors and the mutt maintainers are already active > in trying to find a new approach to consistently tackle this problem > along with the mail detection, Rocco Rutte is the person who is working > on this; they discussed this in their mailing list and there is a wiki > page about this (you can find the URL in the previous correspondences of > this bug). Thanks. I reread that article, and would like to thank the developers for taking into consideration our request. > A definitive fix for this will come with version 1.6, which is only two > releases away from the current release: we expect 1.5.21 and 1.6; > restoring the old behavior would mean to revert some chunks of code and > various commits; since the mutt maintainers are activetely trying to fix > this we would rather wait. Sure. Thanks for letting us know. > Obviously the final decision is up to Christoph Berg, who is the current > maintainer of mutt (I'm co-maintaining it), so if he wants to revert > these commits I will start to do so from next Monday, when I will be > back from holidays :-) Enjoy yourself, and thanks again. Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#533439: Please consider this a regression
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 07:43:24PM -0400, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > Dear Mutt maintainers, > > I am perplexed and quite put off by the new "new" mail behaviour. In > short, when I leave a message marked "new" in an mbox file and change > folders, it should NOT show the mbox file in the changed mbox list > (unless there is a fresh, new message written to it). Granted, that > the Mutt developers have made a decision to "correct" what they > consider a bug; I respect that and have no right to oppose it. But I > wish to request the Debian maintainers to discuss about considering > this a regression. Many of us users have found this behaviour > surprising, and, while, one could argue that we have just got used to > the bug, long time users would not want to be taken by surprise. So, > please do, at least, consider adding an option to restore the old > behaviour. Hi Kumar, thanks for your report, we already know that some users are quite annoyed by the new behaviors and the mutt maintainers are already active in trying to find a new approach to consistently tackle this problem along with the mail detection, Rocco Rutte is the person who is working on this; they discussed this in their mailing list and there is a wiki page about this (you can find the URL in the previous correspondences of this bug). A definitive fix for this will come with version 1.6, which is only two releases away from the current release: we expect 1.5.21 and 1.6; restoring the old behavior would mean to revert some chunks of code and various commits; since the mutt maintainers are activetely trying to fix this we would rather wait. Obviously the final decision is up to Christoph Berg, who is the current maintainer of mutt (I'm co-maintaining it), so if he wants to revert these commits I will start to do so from next Monday, when I will be back from holidays :-) Cheers Antonio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#533439: Please consider this a regression
Dear Mutt maintainers, I am perplexed and quite put off by the new "new" mail behaviour. In short, when I leave a message marked "new" in an mbox file and change folders, it should NOT show the mbox file in the changed mbox list (unless there is a fresh, new message written to it). Granted, that the Mutt developers have made a decision to "correct" what they consider a bug; I respect that and have no right to oppose it. But I wish to request the Debian maintainers to discuss about considering this a regression. Many of us users have found this behaviour surprising, and, while, one could argue that we have just got used to the bug, long time users would not want to be taken by surprise. So, please do, at least, consider adding an option to restore the old behaviour. Thanks! Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah signature.asc Description: Digital signature
