Re: What's needed for mutt 1.6?
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:30:33AM -0800, Brendan Cully wrote:
> So, I'd like to hear once again which patches everyone would like to
> see in 1.6 (and which patches people object to).
I'd really like to see a sane version of the "stuff_all_quoted" patch
that everyone's relatively happy with.
The current way of displaying / quoting flowed text is ugly and doesn't
work well for what I assume is the majority of mutt users - those who
don't use flowed text themselves. While there were some complaints with
how the patch works for people who are *generating* flowed text (and I'm
still highly skeptical, after playing with Vim and its format options
that any of the ones I've heard about will really ensure that messages
are sent with properly encoded flowed text per rfc2646), I don't think
that's an issue that affects the majority of actual mutt users. I don't
claim to be an expert on how this should work, but I think that
displaying and quoting flowed text the way mutt currently does is ugly
and sub-optimal.
There was a bunch of discussion at the mutt-dev thread starting with
message-id:
20060816204324.GA20401@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It sounds like Gary was willing to update his patch and / or rename the
variables if there was consensus as to how it should work.
w