On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:52:00 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> I'd take 'x' for 'return to search view; otherwise you're going to wear
> out my pinky reaching for the shift key. That leaves us with three
> commands:
>
> 'a': advance to next message, archiving current thread, marking read
> messages.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:32:13 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> That's a fine plan. It 'shouldn't' be too hard to implement either.
Noted in TODO for future reference.
> Btw, I'm thinking that it might be useful to create some 'global'
> notmuch keybindings and then create per-view bindings that
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:32:45 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> When closing a thread view, mark the thread as archived by removing
> the "inbox" tag, and for the 'x' variant, the "unread" tag as well,
> then kill the buffer and update the search window view as well.
I'm starting to come around to
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:31:04 +0100, Carl Worth wrote:
> OK. You win. That looks pretty good to me.
So we need to do the 'mark all that have been seen read' change, then we
can do the rest of this switch. Not sure how to make that work, as we
need to know what has been displayed, and you can
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:03:12 +0100, Carl Worth wrote:
> I agree that "normal" should be easier too. So I just need to win you
> over to my notion of "normal", (and teach you of the ways of the magic
> space bar).
As I mentioned, I rarely read mail in a linear fashion; I don't want it
to show me
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:19:29 +0100, Carl Worth wrote:
> I'm starting to come around to this patch, Keith. :-)
I'll keep posting it then :-)
> I think one thing we're going to really need is a better help message
> for presenting the keybindings. The function names are all really
> confusing,
When closing a thread view, mark the thread as archived by removing
the "inbox" tag, and for the 'x' variant, the "unread" tag as well,
then kill the buffer and update the search window view as well.
This makes 'x' much the same as 'a', but instead of taking you to the
next message, it takes you
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:45:01 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:19:26 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> You can use kill-buffer directly (C-X k); adding a new special binding
> for that command seems unnecessary to me.
Well, that's "Control, X, K, Enter", so quite a bit harder than
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:25:34 +0100, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:45:01 -0800, Keith Packard
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:19:26 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> > You can use kill-buffer directly (C-X k); adding a new special binding
> > for that command seems unnecessary to me.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:19:26 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> I don't like this---but that's because I use 'x' precisely *because* it
> preserves these tags.
You can use kill-buffer directly (C-X k); adding a new special binding
for that command seems unnecessary to me.
> Otherwise, you might as
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:32:45 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> When closing a thread view, mark the thread as archived by removing
> the "inbox" tag, and for the 'x' variant, the "unread" tag as well,
> then kill the buffer and update the search window view as well.
>
> This makes 'x' much the same
When closing a thread view, mark the thread as archived by removing
the "inbox" tag, and for the 'x' variant, the "unread" tag as well,
then kill the buffer and update the search window view as well.
This makes 'x' much the same as 'a', but instead of taking you to the
next message, it takes you
12 matches
Mail list logo
