On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:25:41 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> Had I replaced it, though, there are two variations I would have
> tried.? Have you guys considered these and, if so, any thoughts?
>
> * Make SPC mark the *current* message read and move to the next one,
> rather than moving to the next
Quoth Jameson Graef Rollins on Jul 07 at 1:40 pm:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:49:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:25:41 -0400, Austin Clements
> > wrote:
> > > * Make SPC mark the *current* message read and move to the next one,
> > > rather than moving to the next and m
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 16:58:08 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> What I'm suggesting is no more or less automatic than the current
> behavior. It's just a slight tweak to the order in which things
> happen: that SPC could remove the unread tag and then move to the next
> message, rather than the other
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 16:58:08 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> What I'm suggesting is no more or less automatic than the current
> behavior. It's just a slight tweak to the order in which things
> happen: that SPC could remove the unread tag and then move to the next
> message, rather than the other
Quoth Jameson Graef Rollins on Jul 07 at 1:40 pm:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:49:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:25:41 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> > > * Make SPC mark the *current* message read and move to the next one,
> > > rather than moving to the next and markin
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:49:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:25:41 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> > * Make SPC mark the *current* message read and move to the next one,
> > rather than moving to the next and marking it read. This way, you're
> > acknowledging the message
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:49:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:25:41 -0400, Austin Clements
> wrote:
> > * Make SPC mark the *current* message read and move to the next one,
> > rather than moving to the next and marking it read.? This way, you're
> > acknowledging the messa
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:25:41 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> Had I replaced it, though, there are two variations I would have
> tried. Have you guys considered these and, if so, any thoughts?
>
> * Make SPC mark the *current* message read and move to the next one,
> rather than moving to the next
On Jul 5, 2011 4:23 PM, "Matthieu Lemerre" wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:03:51 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins finestructure.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:36:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre
>> wrote:
>> > I like to use the space (and sometimes the backspace key) to read
>> > threads back and
On Jul 5, 2011 4:23 PM, "Matthieu Lemerre" wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:03:51 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:36:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre wrote:
>> > I like to use the space (and sometimes the backspace key) to read
>> > threads back and forth, but sometimes
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:03:51 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:36:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre wrote:
> > I like to use the space (and sometimes the backspace key) to read
> > threads back and forth, but sometimes I might read stuff to quic
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:03:51 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:36:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre wrote:
> > I like to use the space (and sometimes the backspace key) to read
> > threads back and forth, but sometimes I might read stuff to qui
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:42:01 +0100, Robin Green wrote:
> It's really dangerous to use the 'a' key in notmuch-mode in an inbox
> thread which has multiple unread replies! Yes, the other unread replies
> will still be tagged unread, but the user might not immediately be aware
> of them. It would be
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:36:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre wrote:
> I like to use the space (and sometimes the backspace key) to read
> threads back and forth, but sometimes I might read stuff to quickly and
> archive a thread without wanting it. It is then complex to find it back
> (especially if the t
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:36:35 +0200, Matthieu Lemerre wrote:
> I like to use the space (and sometimes the backspace key) to read
> threads back and forth, but sometimes I might read stuff to quickly and
> archive a thread without wanting it. It is then complex to find it back
> (especially if the t
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:42:01 +0100, Robin Green wrote:
> It's really dangerous to use the 'a' key in notmuch-mode in an inbox
> thread which has multiple unread replies! Yes, the other unread replies
> will still be tagged unread, but the user might not immediately be aware
> of them. It would be
16 matches
Mail list logo
