[Users] [Bug 2939] make Sort By/Thread Date the default

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Bonjour noreply at thewildbeast.co.uk,

Le Fri, 04 Jul 2014 06:25:37 +0000, noreply at thewildbeast.co.uk a écrit :

> http://www.thewildbeast.co.uk/claws-mail/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2939
> 
> --- Comment #20 from Paul <paul at claws-mail.org> ---
> (In reply to comment #19)
> 
> > Apparently you fail to understand that the problem is caused by the
> > dysfunction of the (default) sort order of threads.
> > As well, your workaround kludge simply does not work.  (Quite possibly
> > because of newer messages in multiple threads.)
> > In no way related to any actions of the user.
> 
> André, what you call a "workaround kludge" that "does not work" has been
> working for me for many years. But this must be because I'm not as smart as
> you, and there's something that I just don't understand, and it's only though
> my ignorance that it works.
> 
> Congratulations André, you win the prize - a conical hat with a big gold star
> painted on it - for being the smartest kid on the block.

Would it be possible that both of you, André and Paul, stop arguing
ad personam and keep your public contributions to studying the situation
objectively and cooperating with other contributors to get to a useful
conclusion? Thanks in advance. Now for the issue at hand:

As far that the technical point is concerned, I would like to point
out the following objective items:

- there are currently two date-based sorting options in CM: "sort by
  date" and "sort by thread date".

- "thread date" is ambiguous by nature, as a thread does not
  have one date; it has at least two, that of is original (oldest)
  message, and that of the latest (newest) message (it could even mean
  "any date between oldest and newest message", but I"ve seen no use
  of this meaning).

- when not threading, "sort by thread date" seems to bear little or
  no useful meaning, first because the user explicitly did not want to
  thread, second because sorting /messages/ by (whatever) /thread/ date
  (is considered) would display messages in a non-date-monotonic, thus
  IMO unnatural, order.

- when threading, "sort by date" has no meaning or usefulness, as
  nothing says which of a thread's message the date should be taken
  from. Similarly, "sort by date" could mean the same as "sort by
  thread date", which would be confusing;

- the default setting is "Thread view" and "sort by date", which means
  a thread started long ago will be displayed along "older" threads
  even if it received a new reply recently.

These facts led me (in comment #8, then again in comment #17) to
suggest that:

- only one date-sorting be kept: "sort by date";

- that the date in question be defined as the "message date" when not
  threading, and the "thread date" when threading;

- that the "thread date" be defined as the oldest or newest thread
  message date, depending on a two-option switch in the View/Sort
  menu, similar in appearance to the Ascending/Descending switch,
  only with "Thread date is oldest message date/Thread date is
  newest message date";

- In order to keep current default behaviour unchanged, set "sort by
  date" and "thread date is newest message date" as defaults.

I know I've said this already; however, it has received no feedback,
not even an acknowledgement of existence, which makes it hard for me to
decide whether my suggestion is deemed pointless or simply ignored
because a personal argument is developing.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.