[Users] deleting message does not advance anymore

H.Merijn Brand h.m.brand at xs4all.nl
Fri Aug 12 08:48:03 CEST 2016

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:02:34 +0100, Paul <claws at thewildbeast.co.uk>

> After yesterday, I wasn't intending on saying any more about this,
> but to finally read a message by someone who gets it is worth a
> comment. (or maybe not, you decide!) 
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 23:40:36 +0200
> Slavko <linux at slavino.sk> wrote: 
> > From my understanding of the
> > problem, the old behavior was bad, because it was inconsistent in
> > some circumstances...  
> That's exactly right. For a lot of users, such as yourself, this
> change, (stretching from 3.13.1 to 13.14.0), produces absolutely no
> change in behaviour. It was to fix an inconsistency and nothing
> more. However, since some users will have grown used to the
> inconsistency, it wasn't enough just to fix the inconsistency. In an
> attempt to not force this change on current users who did not want it,
> (for those who were used to the inconsistency), a preference had to be
> added. It's a hidden preference because for a good number of users
> nothing changed anyway, and new users will readily accept the now
> consistent behaviour.

I think that the main reason people see/saw this change in behavior is
*not* because of the inconsistency that was fixed.

Half (most?, more than half?) of the users stick with the default
sorting (newest at bottom) and will not/never see/notice the change.

The other half - including me - thinks that newest on top is the only
sensible way to view message lists, and that group was struck with this
change as incompatible and illogical. I had a hard time seeing the
fixed inconsistency when the patch was originally committed (I run CM
from git builds, so I see them quite soon), and it made me curse too.

I applaud the time and effort you developers put in this wonderful
piece of software so many people use on a day-to-day basis, but I am
afraid that you underrated the effect on users that sort newest on top,
as I expect none of the developers do. Preference is only logical in
the eyes of the beholder. For people like me, "next_on_delete = 0" is
the only sensible setting, and since I changed it I was happy again.

Maybe the default should be based on sorting preferences, but that
might cause many more inconsistencies.

> The comment about not considering the users was way off the mark and
> quite inconsiderate itself. Everything was discussed, described, and
> documented publicly.

It was.

> with regards
> Paul

H.Merijn Brand  http://tux.nl   Perl Monger  http://amsterdam.pm.org/
using perl5.00307 .. 5.25   porting perl5 on HP-UX, AIX, and openSUSE
http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/        http://www.test-smoke.org/
http://qa.perl.org   http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.claws-mail.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20160812/1ecbfd98/attachment.sig>

More information about the Users mailing list