Resent-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Resent-From: Keith Amidon <camalot@picnicpark.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:51:18 -0800
Resent-Message-ID: <87zl67sygp.fsf@friend.picnicpark.org>
From: Keith Amidon <camalot@picnicpark.org>
To: aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Aneesh Kumar K.V)
Organization: picnicpark.org
References: <1259328615-1445-1-git-send-email-camalot@picnicpark.org>
	<1259328615-1445-2-git-send-email-camalot@picnicpark.org>
	<1259328615-1445-3-git-send-email-camalot@picnicpark.org>
	<1259328615-1445-4-git-send-email-camalot@picnicpark.org>
	<1259328615-1445-5-git-send-email-camalot@picnicpark.org>
	<1259328615-1445-6-git-send-email-camalot@picnicpark.org>
	<1259328615-1445-7-git-send-email-camalot@picnicpark.org>
	<87bpiongh5.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:48:56 -0800
In-Reply-To: <87bpiongh5.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (Aneesh Kumar K. V.'s message
	of "Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:48:46 +0530")
Message-ID: <873a3zud53.fsf@friend.picnicpark.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH 6/9] Reply to individual messages using
	message library
Precedence: list

{-- Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:48:46 +0530: Aneesh <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: --}

  Aneesh> Hi, Really good set of patches. I am right now testing with
  Aneesh> the set of changes and found that

Thanks!

  Aneesh> a) notmuch-show-reply-current and other helpers doesn't put
  Aneesh> the mail content i am replying in the reply buffer in quoted
  Aneesh> form. What i was expecting was something similar to
  Aneesh> notmuch-show-reply but one that doesn't add all the email
  Aneesh> address.

Well, the fact that I mainly cared about message forwarding and not the
reply functions is turning out to show rather badly...  There appear to
be a number of problems with the reply functions starting with the fact
that I kill the buffer that has the original message contents in it as
soon as the reply buffer is constructed, which message doesn't really
like.  I can think of some ways around the problems but I'm getting the
sense that enhancing the notmuch C program's ability to generate
different styles of replies would be preferred to what I have done.

Forwarding works fine though... :-)

  Aneesh> b) The key-binding MA is really difficult to type. How about
  Aneesh> (kbd "M-a") ?  c) I liked the mail forward feature

My main criteria in selecting key bindings was that they not conflict
with current ones.  If this were to become the preferred way to do this
I'd be happy to change them to whatever consensus emerges.

     --- Keith