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 13A56431FB6 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:06:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] autolearn=unavailable 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 g2UrENMbfN1A for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tesseract.cs.unb.ca (tesseract.cs.unb.ca [131.202.240.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB9D9431FAF for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by tesseract.cs.unb.ca with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Sk2Fp-0000qg-9e; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:06:37 -0300 Received: (nullmailer pid 5974 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:06:34 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Jameson Graef Rollins , Carl Worth , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restore original keybinding ('r' = reply-to-all) In-Reply-To: <87obo4zljq.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> References: <1340815565-21083-1-git-send-email-cworth@cworth.org> <87obo4zljq.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:06:34 -0300 Message-ID: <87hatwqoz9.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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, 28 Jun 2012 00:06:42 -0000 On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:55:53 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27 2012, Carl Worth wrote: > > Since the beginning of time, the emacs interface provided a keybinding > > of 'r' to reply to a message, (and originally, all recipients). > > > > Then, before release 0.12 the emacs interface acquired a new > > reply-to-sender only feature. In commit > > f02b475fa781bb5df3358c73213e7633a99f016e the new feature was put onto > > the original keybinding, (and reply-to-all was moved to 'R'). > > > > This restores the original keybinding and uses the new keybinding for > > the new feature. My bias is probably apparent in that I pushed the original patch... I think the there is potential for unfortunate mistakes with either set of bindings. On the one hand sending replies to unintended people can be very embarrassing. On the other hand, forgetting to reply to the group can also be problematic. The latter is easier to correct, _if_ it is detected. When we discussed this earlier, there were people who supported both options as default. I broke the tie based on my experience with other mailers, and the fact that apparently I worry more about sending things to too many people than to too few. Obviously Carl would have chosen differently. It would be easy enough to add a customization variable to swap the outcomes of r and R; iirc this is what wanderlust (or maybe VM) does. It seems that would not really make people any happier, since the complaint is not that it is hard to do the keybindings, but that the bindings changed. I do worry that by changing back, we annoy a whole new set of people. I'm not worried for myself; I can add the equivalent keybindings to my .emacs. I do (hypothetically) sympathize with people who just got used to the new behaviour and are surprised again. Anyway, if there is consensus that changing back is the right thing to do, then I can live with that. d