[PATCH v1] emacs: Don't insert part header pseudo-buttons during reply by default.

[PATCH v1] emacs: Don't insert part header pseudo-buttons during reply by default.

[David Edmondson]

Based on feedback from users, change the default value of
`notmuch-mua-reply-insert-header-p-function' to
`notmuch-show-reply-insert-header-p-never', with the consequence that
replies will not have part header pseudo-buttons. This more closely
matches the behaviour before the recent changes to the reply code.
---
 emacs/notmuch-mua.el | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/emacs/notmuch-mua.el b/emacs/notmuch-mua.el
index fcb3e95..773a000 100644
--- a/emacs/notmuch-mua.el
+++ b/emacs/notmuch-mua.el
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Note that these functions use `mail-citation-hook' if that is non-nil."
   :group 'notmuch-reply)
 
 (defcustom notmuch-mua-reply-insert-header-p-function
-  'notmuch-show-reply-insert-header-p-trimmed
+  'notmuch-show-reply-insert-header-p-never
   "Function to decide which parts get a header when replying.
 
 This function specifies which parts of a mime message with
-- 
2.1.4

Re: [PATCH v1] emacs: Don't insert part header pseudo-buttons during reply by default.

[Tomi Ollila]

On Wed, Mar 16 2016, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:

> [ text/plain ]
> Based on feedback from users, change the default value of
> `notmuch-mua-reply-insert-header-p-function' to
> `notmuch-show-reply-insert-header-p-never', with the consequence that
> replies will not have part header pseudo-buttons. This more closely
> matches the behaviour before the recent changes to the reply code.
> ---
>  emacs/notmuch-mua.el | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/emacs/notmuch-mua.el b/emacs/notmuch-mua.el
> index fcb3e95..773a000 100644
> --- a/emacs/notmuch-mua.el
> +++ b/emacs/notmuch-mua.el
> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Note that these functions use `mail-citation-hook' if that is non-nil."
>    :group 'notmuch-reply)
>  
>  (defcustom notmuch-mua-reply-insert-header-p-function
> -  'notmuch-show-reply-insert-header-p-trimmed
> +  'notmuch-show-reply-insert-header-p-never
>    "Function to decide which parts get a header when replying.

LGTM. 

For test robustness, the related change in output of 
git show d27d90875dfb1 (<dme@dme.org>, Sat Feb 20 2016):

+;; For historical reasonse we don't print part headers when replying
+;; in the tests suite
+(setq notmuch-mua-reply-insert-header-p-function
'notmuch-show-reply-insert-header-p-never)

could also be reverted.

(another thing that would be so cool: 
    #'notmuch-show-reply-insert-header-p-never
but perhaps such a thing is to be done in separate patch "globally")


Tomi

Re: [PATCH v1] emacs: Don't insert part header pseudo-buttons during reply by default.

[David Bremner]

David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> writes:

> Based on feedback from users, change the default value of
> `notmuch-mua-reply-insert-header-p-function' to
> `notmuch-show-reply-insert-header-p-never', with the consequence that
> replies will not have part header pseudo-buttons. This more closely
> matches the behaviour before the recent changes to the reply code.
> ---
>  emacs/notmuch-mua.el | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/emacs/notmuch-mua.el b/emacs/notmuch-mua.el
> index fcb3e95..773a000 100644
> --- a/emacs/notmuch-mua.el
> +++ b/emacs/notmuch-mua.el
> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Note that these functions use `mail-citation-hook' if that is non-nil."
>    :group 'notmuch-reply)
>  
>  (defcustom notmuch-mua-reply-insert-header-p-function
> -  'notmuch-show-reply-insert-header-p-trimmed
> +  'notmuch-show-reply-insert-header-p-never
>    "Function to decide which parts get a header when replying.
>  
>  This function specifies which parts of a mime message with
> -- 
> 2.1.4

I think I have small preference for Nicolas' version, so I'm marking
this as "obsolete". Please let me know and/or retag if you disagree.

d

Re: [PATCH v1] emacs: Don't insert part header pseudo-buttons during reply by default.

[David Edmondson]

On Fri, Mar 18 2016, David Bremner wrote:
> I think I have small preference for Nicolas' version, so I'm marking
> this as "obsolete". Please let me know and/or retag if you disagree.

His looks good to me.