[Users] Deleting one long thread
subscript at free.fr
Wed Sep 30 07:53:28 CEST 2015
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:38:02 +0200 Francis Moreau <francis.moro at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Paul <claws at thewildbeast.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:30:34 +0200
> > Ralf Hutter <rhutter at posteo.de> wrote:
> >> To be fair: Out of the 3 people giving their opinion before your
> >> last email, paul (in your first email you didn't seem to give an
> >> opinion but rather a hint on a kind of workaround), 2 were saying
> >> that they dislike the current way it works.
> > The way it currently works is not an accident, but represents the dev
> > team's opinion on how it should work. Since this is implicit, I
> > didn't think it was worth a mention, but since you seem to be not
> > taking that into consideration, I've mentioned it now.
> Ok, the dev team thinks it's how it should work but haven't explained
> why they think so:
> Why does the dev team think that collapsing the entire thread and
> press SUPPR on the root email of the thread should delete the root
> email only and let a partially broken thread (ie a thread with missing
> emails) ?
> Seriously I really don't see any reason this is superior than delete
> the whole thread.
I tend to agree, things could be better there, like del key to delete a
message, shift+del to delete message and children, with no regards to
what's collapsed or not, root node or whatever. Usually, GUI's may
behave differently when handling collapsed things, but doing things in
blind mode without a warning about deleting a tree or a specific action
(shift+.., ctrl+..) scares me a bit.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Users