Jameson Graef Rollins
writes:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:25:11 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
>> default
>> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of
>> --no-reply-all)?
>>
>> Bikeshedding topic #2: How ab
Jameson Graef Rollins
writes:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:25:11 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
>> default
>> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of
>> --no-reply-all)?
>>
>> Bikeshedding topic #2: How ab
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:01:44 -0700, Adam Wolfe Gordon
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 13:25, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> > default
> > in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of
> > --no-reply-all)?
> >
> >
Hi Mark -
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:01:30 +, Mark Walters
wrote:
> > Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> > default
> > in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of
> > --no-reply-all)?
>
> In id:"87pqn5cg4g.fsf at yoom.home.cworth.org"
Hello
I have now compared the two patch sets. They seem very similar but I
think yours is a little bit nicer in all respects except I prefer my
use of "g_mime_message_get_all_recipients (reply) == NULL".
However, one case that is slightly less clear with my approach is
what to do about reply-to-
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:01:44 -0700, Adam Wolfe Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 13:25, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> > default
> > in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of
> > --no-reply-all)?
> >
> > B
> That is a very good point, and one that my patch fails to address.
>
> > (*) I have a version of that patch-set which applies to master if that
> > would be useful to anyone, and I recently started writing tests in
> > preparation for re-submitting.
>
> Ah, it's old, no wonder I didn't know a
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:25:11 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> default
> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-all)?
No strong opinion (I hardly ever use the CLI directly).
> Bikeshedding topi
Hello
I have now compared the two patch sets. They seem very similar but I
think yours is a little bit nicer in all respects except I prefer my
use of "g_mime_message_get_all_recipients (reply) == NULL".
However, one case that is slightly less clear with my approach is
what to do about reply-to-
> That is a very good point, and one that my patch fails to address.
>
> > (*) I have a version of that patch-set which applies to master if that
> > would be useful to anyone, and I recently started writing tests in
> > preparation for re-submitting.
>
> Ah, it's old, no wonder I didn't know a
Hi Mark -
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:01:30 +, Mark Walters
wrote:
> > Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> > default
> > in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of
> > --no-reply-all)?
>
> In id:"87pqn5cg4g@yoom.home.cworth.org" cwo
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:25:11 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> default
> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-all)?
No strong opinion (I hardly ever use the CLI directly).
> Bikeshedding topi
Hi all -
Patch 1 is a bugfix worth considering for release branch independently. Included
in the same patchset as the following ones depend on it.
The rest of the patches add reply-to-sender (as opposed to reply-to-all)
functionality to "notmuch reply" and emacs.
Bikeshedding topic #1: How about
Hello
> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> default
> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-all)?
In id:"87pqn5cg4g.fsf at yoom.home.cworth.org" cworth suggested using
--reply-to=sender vs. --reply-to=all (keeping the lat
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 13:25, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> default
> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-all)?
>
> Bikeshedding topic #2: How about binding 'r' to reply to just the sender by
> d
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 13:25, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> default
> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-all)?
>
> Bikeshedding topic #2: How about binding 'r' to reply to just the sender by
> d
Hello
> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> default
> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-all)?
In id:"87pqn5cg4g@yoom.home.cworth.org" cworth suggested using
--reply-to=sender vs. --reply-to=all (keeping the latter
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:25:11 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> default
> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-all)?
>
> Bikeshedding topic #2: How about binding 'r' to reply to just the sender
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:25:11 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the
> default
> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-all)?
>
> Bikeshedding topic #2: How about binding 'r' to reply to just the sender
Hi all -
Patch 1 is a bugfix worth considering for release branch independently. Included
in the same patchset as the following ones depend on it.
The rest of the patches add reply-to-sender (as opposed to reply-to-all)
functionality to "notmuch reply" and emacs.
Bikeshedding topic #1: How about
20 matches
Mail list logo