[Users] [Bug 4006] Message List navigates wrong way with lists sorted in reverse date order

[noreply at thewildbeast.co.uk]

https://www.thewildbeast.co.uk/claws-mail/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4006

--- Comment #18 from waldner at katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> 
> Against my better judgement, and at risk of further personal insults

If you stop being condescending, doing selective quoting and being misleading,
nobody will insult you.

> > Did you even try it?
> 
> Is this a serious question? Of course I did.

Then you'll see that:

- the way "n" and "p" worked changed
- the new behavior is that selecting the next unread message may navigate
backwards (in space and time), which means if one uses "next unread message" to
navigate a thread, the thread is read backwards

Did you notice that? You surely did, if you tried it.

> >  All very clearly explained by the OP in the very first bug comment.
> 
> And, I think, clearly answered in comment #1.

Nope. You said nothing specifically about the problem the OP was mentioning
(that is, default behavior change). You just said "you can do this and that".

> > You changed a default behavior (which is questionable by itself), and
> > without giving an option to users who wanted the keep old behavior.
> 
> Quite simply, if you want 'previous' to act like 'next' and 'next' to act
> like 'previous', instead of using 'next' use 'previous' and vice versa.

Again, you're not answering. At this point everyone knows what these keys do,
and how to get the desired behavior. IF you keep repeating that, you start
looking as if you either don't get the point, or you're deliberately being
misleading.

You single-handedly forced a *change in default behavior* on all users, without
giving an option to opt out. 

> > > As for the option, there wasn't one before either.
> > 
> > Of course there wasn't one, before it wasn't needed.
> 
> On the contrary, just like you think an option is needed for you, one could
> use the opposite point of view to say that an option was needed for those
> users who didn't want the previous behaviour. This was instigated, remember,
> by user requests and comments.

Again, stick to the point: before there was a default (good or bad, I'm not
going into that. Good IMHO, but that's not the point). People were using that,
some even were relying on that. The need for an option came the moment you
changed that default, breaking claws behavior in an incompatible way (in fact,
reversing the previous behavior). You could have made that as opt-in, so
nothing would break for old user. Instead, you not only forced that change on
all users, but provided no opt-out.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.