Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63348429E32 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:33:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YFw1mpW5diiL for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:33:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu [131.215.239.19]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EB0429E31 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:33:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from earth-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by earth-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119F366E0178; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:33:49 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on earth-doxen by amavisd-new Received: from finestructure.net (gwave-90.ligo.caltech.edu [131.215.114.90]) (Authenticated sender: jrollins) by earth-doxen-submit (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4533566E0100; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:33:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0F7537B8; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:33:45 -0800 (PST) From: Jameson Graef Rollins To: Jani Nikula , notmuch@notmuchmail.org, david@tethera.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] notmuch reply bugfix & reply to sender only In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+138~g0b4049e (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:33:42 -0800 Message-ID: <87zke13n4p.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:33:51 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:25:11 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the d= efault > in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-= all)? >=20 > Bikeshedding topic #2: How about binding 'r' to reply to just the sender = by > default, and making 'R' reply-all (instead of vice versa)? I personally like both of these suggestions, and would not be bothered by the changed default, so I support both of these changes. Maybe we could just use '--all', instead of '--reply-all'? The 'reply' part seems kind of redundant with the command: notmuch reply --all vs. notmuch reply --reply-all jamie. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPBgkmAAoJEO00zqvie6q8XQYP/3Tx3/N9qwE/IyVblARrgKdj Rp+zsNn1RKX5X1BrLI6OmHhRkSanmKiOJH2VzLeKGS8oGeolcWGl/EmEygGUmPFR q5Zi/mQyQ4NGsY3LXXYiuwrawVcKhR8E8n7bFQ0WV8borku+L/+K19UKsvh8ILaU pd04w/3LPmzlMVp1CtOCkTpgj1wYNUE9v/DsTFZxeFFQcsj3H1RBQzsO6oba8MLj ecIRC5N/9Jl72eHPhmwVMdnin0FQU8AAKwFOAs+JfDfB8tTkR9hmEF3lupx9ujoO CRCJY48qPsB/saVroMDOIMXMWNQQwH1FFaTB21YF8Xq0sKPuH2pkOpTPEnaTkM28 0zdFcmqeMAS/5W8G93RIct4Xk6OKShjktNMnEkGSfuSZITqFCaLi2WFMbNsJelqx OT5L0T/EcqLfAP1BpGHkFqthim85ajjYMunwB2Q66G8FWlW1ziz9xrSu/K1vO4jt CJKiqxjHP2sMIUHOih/YoAK/r12eo7dWbECvU/pT5uo/Z3beQSgqAaFs+a2UAMxj FJJcibyjjQVF5U78qVdE4xD3d3sMkGxUCUPP1QqnYd2rBQ5SlEl3XSzSvwEUKllv TWabsn/5WPsyzOzD0jFTacutfB0ADtc89fsGA0Kz/PwWfP6UHhYO9ZBPmF45q1ae YtB2bFJusDQD08HpVybp =wFUi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--