Re: [Evolution] Annoyance with "next message" order

[Paul Smith <paul mad-scientist net>]

On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 15:18 +0000, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > In the above situation, I use C-d to delete the current message.  I
> > thought the problem was that the cursor then skipped the next message
> > but what happens is more subtle than that: the cursor does correctly go
> > to the next message in order, but then the MESSAGES ARE REORDERED so
> > that now I have a new message above (before) my cursor
>
> Would it help if you turned on "show deleted messages" (or off "hide
> deleted messages") - then it wouldn't ever need to re-order the list?

Possibly... but I don't like to show my deleted messages :)

> > I wonder if the bug here isn't in the original threading display.  If
> > we're really going to read things by date, but with threading, wouldn't
> > the correct order for the original threading be this:
> >
> >   --> Joe      v help with this        Today 00:57
> >       Joe        v help with this      Today 01:14
> >       Bob            help with this    Today 02:52
> >       Bob          help with this      Today 02:43
> >
> > ?  That is, the next message in the thread after Joe's 00:57 message is
> > Joe's 01:14 message, so that should be next.  Then all replies to Joe's
> > 01:14 message are after it, in a subthread.
>
> But I'm sure someone would say that the ordering is wrong because the
> last message is not the newest message as the sort order implies. (I'm
> not disagreeing with you BTW).

Well, that someone would just be wrong, wouldn't they? :-).

I'm not actually sure how the current threading algorithm works; it
seems to create the threads, then order subthreads based on the NEWEST
message in the subthread?  Maybe?  To me that is unexpected.

My reason for using threading is that I want to read the messages in
order as they were written: that means that I want to read subthreads
created earlier in time before ones created later in time, and I want to
read that entire subthread to the end before going to the next one.
That leads to the "depth-first" sorting I suggested before.

> But I think the bug here might be the re-ordering after you delete a
> message.  I would have thought there is a case for saying that the tree
> shouldn't be re-ordered whilst you remain in the folder.

Perhaps not re-ordering every time a message is deleted would be
legitimate.  But requiring you to exit the folder and re-enter in order
to re-order is not what I would like, for sure.  Reordering needs to
happen when new mail is retrieved, at least!

It would be weird to treat your mail in "blocks" of retrieved messages,
and only sort them within those blocks so that messages in
newly-retrieved blocks aren't added to previously retrieved blocks,
unless you exit/re-enter the folder to get a total reorder.  Maybe I
don't understand what you're suggesting.