Re: mutt/2169: Four suggested changes
The following reply was made to PR mutt/2169; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Alain Bench <veronatif@xxxxxxx>
To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Scott B. Marovich" <marovich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: mutt/2169: Four suggested changes
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:54:59 +0200 (CEST)
Hi Paul! And hi Scott.
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 23:55:39 +0200, Paul Walker wrote:
> the headline was way too long.
Reduced at last! Thanks! :-)
1 report, 1 bug or wish, 1 title, 1 patch. No more confusing megamix
overlong things, please. For common sense, contact your local dealer.
> I'd agree with tamo - breaking this into four separate change reqs
Me too. But I'd question the need for 4 points. I mean that:
-2) copiousoutput: That's a misunderstanding of Mutt's design, and the
proposed change would break the autoview and attachment menu dual
command ability. That's a no-go.
-3) $implicit_autoview quadoption: This doesn't make sense to me.
Repeatedly prompting user for display of each part, when mails can have
various number of parts... This seems to contradict one Mutt design
principle: Have user interactions as predictable as possible.
One could argue that it's an option, off by default, and that some
people may like it in some circumstances. On one side I could agree. But
I doubt many people may like this prompting behaviour. If its only OP
and 2-3 other people, that's bloat, and is a no-go.
But definitely: As coded, crude yes/no prompts without any
indication of which part, type, size, or filename it commands, this is
only pure annoyance: Rejected.
This keeps 2 points open:
-1) Local address mangling: Problem not understood, needs more infos.
Proposed patch seems broken, giving bad results: Vanishing addresses.
-4) Mono example in RTFF1: Valid wish. Good manuals want examples.
Unfortunately the point is not covered by the patch.
Scott: Please describe the address mangling problem.
May I also suggest that discussing ideas with Mutt users or
developpers before making any coding may help to cleanly design things?
You see, you made the effort to make a patch sustaining your
suggestions, which is very welcome, and we thank you very much for this.
But now the 3 points covered by your patch are all broken or rejected.
What a waste of energy!
Bye! Alain.
--
Followups to bug reports are public, and should go to bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
and the reporter (unless he is a member of mutt-dev). Do not CC mutt-dev
mailing
list, the BTS does it already. Do not send to mutt-dev only, your writings
would
not be tracked. Do not remove the "mutt/nnnn:" tag from subject.