[Users] Version 3.13

moxalt moxalt at riseup.net
Tue Oct 13 16:14:47 CEST 2015

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 18:49:17 +0200, "H.Merijn Brand" <h.m.brand at xs4all.nl>

> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:58:33 +0200, "Paul Rolland (ポール・ロラン)"
> <rol at witbe.net> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:48:03 +0100
> > Paul <claws at thewildbeast.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > Your patch just reverts a recent fix.
> > 
> > Huh ? What was fixed ? I don't remember seeing a bug related to that
> > behavior in the list...
> Some perceived this as a bug. Others never noticed. The moment it got
> "fixed", I started complaining as nothing worked as *I* expected it to
> work. The "fix" broke *my* workflow in a way that would make me leave
> CM if that was the only way it would work.
> As that patch broke my workflow, it was the easiest action to take:
> just revert what was causing my grief, regardless of what it might fix
> (that never bothered me obviously).
> > > Previously it would go the previous message if you you had newest at
> > > the bottom, and the next message if you had newest at the top. Now it
> > > is consistent.   
> > 
> > What do you mean "consistent" ? My PoV is that 3.13 is not consistent with
> > 3.12 :(
> Consistency is within the eye of the user. I think that the majority of
> the CM developers think the only sane way of sorting threaded view is
> having the newest last. Fine with me, but that is not how I work. I
> want the newest on top. Period. You may call that weird or stupid or
> whatever, but I have worked like that since many many years and am not
> planning to change. I am under the impression that I am not the only
> one.

You're not the only one. If Claws offers an option to sort newest last, it
should work, not just be ignored because 'no one does it that way'. Dictating
to the users whether they should sort ascending or descending just seems very

More information about the Users mailing list