Return-Path: <gmn-notmuch@m.gmane.org>
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 2EF7040A637
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat,  7 Jan 2012 11:26:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.3
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 cKbYfXXhNR3D for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
	Sat,  7 Jan 2012 11:26:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610D240A635
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat,  7 Jan 2012 11:26:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gmn-notmuch@m.gmane.org>) id 1Rjbu3-00074V-2J
	for notmuch@notmuchmail.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:26:07 +0100
Received: from c-71-237-233-41.hsd1.or.comcast.net ([71.237.233.41])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:26:07 +0100
Received: from mailinglists by c-71-237-233-41.hsd1.or.comcast.net with local
	(Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:26:07 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
From: Mueen Nawaz <mailinglists@nawaz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] notmuch reply bugfix & reply to sender only
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 11:25:49 -0800
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <87wr93qpqa.fsf@fester.com>
References: <cover.1325794371.git.jani@nikula.org>
	<87zke13n4p.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-71-237-233-41.hsd1.or.comcast.net
nm-tags: 
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dgff35n+f0LvWMWC9SldtnuUzqc=
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:26:12 -0000

Jameson Graef Rollins
<jrollins@finestructure.net> writes:

> On Thu,  5 Jan 2012 22:25:11 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
>> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the default
>> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-all)?
>> 
>> 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.

I too feel that 'r' should reply only to sender, and 'R' should reply
all. Having reply-all as default is a pain.