[Users] Please revert "make Go to/[Next|Prev] sort order aware"

[Andreas Ronnquist]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 01:28:52 +0200,
Paul Steyn<paulsteyn1 at afrihost.co.za> wrote:

>Just to put my oar in, for what it's worth:
>
>When I think of a "next" button, I think of it as a "next in list"
>button, not a "next in sort order" button, and would expect a "next"
>button to go down the list and a "previous" button to go up the list.
>I don't change sort order often (if at all), but if I had a sort order
>where the "next" button went *up* the list, I would find that strange
>and undesirable behaviour.
>
>Especially if this suddenly starts happening, and isn't how it's always
>worked.
>
>Also, the concept of "next" and "previous" only have inherent meaning
>to me in the context of either the list, or the date of the message.
>"Next" and "previous" in the context of, say, the "From" field, or the
>"Size" field, doesn't really seem logical to me. If I sort by, for
>example, size, "next" doesn't inherently mean either the next biggest
>or the next smallest, to me it can only sensibly mean the next item in
>the list, i.e. the item below the current one.
>
>All are not me, though, so a configuration option for this does make
>sense.
>
>Kind regards
>
>
>Paul Steyn
>
>
>
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:50:35 -0700
>Lyle Bickley <lbickley at bickleywest.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:40:23 +0200
>> Olivier Brunel <jjk at jjacky.com> wrote:
>> 
>> --snip--
>> 
>  > > So I feel a sensible thing to do would be to make this
>  > > option-based,
>> > an option that correctly states it makes the go to prev/next
>> > actions ignore the sort direction, since that is what it does (and
>> > that, IMHO, should be disabled by default).  
>] > 
>> I usually "git" several intermediate releases of Claws in between the
>> major updates to help find bugs and report same to the development
>> team.
>> 
>> I, too, became perplexed when this change "crept" into Claws and I
>> kept looking for an option to turn it off and go back to the way
>> every mail system I've previously used works.
>> 
>> There may be some that like this new "feature" - so I too - would
>> recommend that it be made an option.
>> 
>> BTW: I apologize for not suggesting that this be optional during
>> testing - as I wanted to "live with it" for a while to see if it had
>> any advantages.
>> 
>> Over a long period of testing, it has not proven itself helpful to
>> me.

Take a look at bug 3788 and the patch I created in there.

http://www.thewildbeast.co.uk/claws-mail/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3788

-- Andreas Rönnquist
mailinglists at gusnan.se
gusnan at openmailbox.org