From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: David Mazieres expires 2016-07-03 PDT
 <mazieres-297ctmng4fhr6h6ad8yffa64yi@temporary-address.scs.stanford.edu>,
 Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>, Eric <eric@deptj.eu>,
 notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: Breaking a really long thread
In-Reply-To: <87wpoc7hf8.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
References: <c10e501c2baee471cbeeb42aad89a1e966407234-NM@bruno.deptj.eu>
 <87k2kd8r6d.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <87wpoc7hf8.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+124~gbf604e9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 07:20:47 -0400
Message-ID: <8760vrm3jk.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list

On Tue 2016-04-05 01:28:43 -0400, David Mazieres wrote:
> Arguably, I would say either both the In-Reply-To and the References
> header should be hidden or neither.  Otherwise, what was happening is
> that I was deleting the In-Reply-To header as it was the only one I saw,
> and figuring that maybe References was adjusted after the fact based on
> In-Reply-To.  After all, the message buffer doesn't keep track of the
> parent message.
>
> Unless there's a reason that someone would want to alter In-Reply-To
> without altering References, it doesn't make sense to show one without
> the other.

I think i agree with David here, but the fact is that
message-hidden-headers is derived directly from emacs (in message.el),
and isn't part of notmuch-emacs at all.

Are these changes worth addressing upstream?

    --dkg