On 2010-01-24, at 09:03 , Neil wrote: > > > Well...this is a power user client... What's wrong with just giving the > option? I don't see this as causing a huge amount of bloat. We implement > JWZ-style threading, and then in Preferences: > > " > Show threads: > ( ) Tree > ( ) Flat > [ ] Also use Subject-line based threading > " > > Now, how about we move to arguing about the default?
I don't disagree, we could have them all built-in. But in the name of shipping, I made a very pragmatical argument that we can ship with tree view by default, and make the threading mechanism pluggable. The gist is that all other threading modes can be implemented UI-wise as a subset of the tree view, and that flattening / splitting / merging thread trees in the backend is relatively simple data transformation. Put another way, the first thing to be coded is the tree support. After that contributors can chime in with the alternate implementations, and they may even be adopted before there's a final 1.0 release. One more thing: that preference would have to be per view. Even tree lovers just really want them for mailing lists. It makes no sense on a single-recipient conversation. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
