* [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be?
@ 2009-09-09 17:32 Carl Worth
2009-09-10 14:13 ` William Morgan
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Carl Worth @ 2009-09-09 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
Being a ruthless mail-processor, I sometimes archive or delete a
message hastily and realize a moment later that I actually want to
look at the message again.
Of course, if that happens when I'm in a thread-index-mode, then I can
just hit 'u' to undo and all is fine.
But if I make the same mistake in thread-view-mode then I'm currently
out of luck.
Would it be a small change to move the undo keybinding to somewhere
more universal?
As a first cut, I'd be happy if it just undid the changes to the
index, even without undoing any interface changes. That is, if my
previous command was archive-thread-and-view-next-thread, it would be
OK if it just undid the archiving part. Bonus points if it also undoes
the view-next part, but I can imagine that being more work.
Again, this is a feature I'd be happy to spend some time investigating
myself when I get the chance. I'd just be happy to hear any thoughts
on feasibility. And I'm trying to get in the habit of mentioning
issues as I run into them rather than waiting until I have the chance
to actually work on them, (at which point I may have forgotten the
issues).
-Carl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/sup-talk/attachments/20090909/28acedf6/attachment.bin>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be?
2009-09-09 17:32 [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be? Carl Worth
@ 2009-09-10 14:13 ` William Morgan
2009-09-10 14:35 ` Marc Weber
2009-09-10 22:45 ` Rich Lane
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: William Morgan @ 2009-09-10 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
Reformatted excerpts from Carl Worth's message of 2009-09-09:
> Would it be a small change to move the undo keybinding to somewhere
> more universal?
The undo keybinding could definitely be moved from thread-index-mode to
the main event loop. That's a small change. The bigger amount of work is
writing undo lambdas for every operation you want to be able to undo,
e.g. every command in thread-view-mode. It's not complicated, just a
little tedious, IMO.
--
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be?
2009-09-09 17:32 [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be? Carl Worth
2009-09-10 14:13 ` William Morgan
@ 2009-09-10 14:35 ` Marc Weber
2009-09-10 22:45 ` Rich Lane
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Marc Weber @ 2009-09-10 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
Excerpts from Carl Worth's message of Wed Sep 09 19:32:30 +0200 2009:
> Being a ruthless mail-processor, I sometimes archive or delete a
> message hastily and realize a moment later that I actually want to
> look at the message again.
What about a "last viewed history" list?
Then you could use that to review the threads?
Maybe its best to add a property:
last-viewed-on: timestamp.
Then you can even use the existing search engine to view those threads ?
Marc Weber
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be?
2009-09-09 17:32 [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be? Carl Worth
2009-09-10 14:13 ` William Morgan
2009-09-10 14:35 ` Marc Weber
@ 2009-09-10 22:45 ` Rich Lane
2009-09-11 9:16 ` Nicolas Pouillard
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Rich Lane @ 2009-09-10 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
Excerpts from Carl Worth's message of Wed Sep 09 13:32:30 -0400 2009:
> Would it be a small change to move the undo keybinding to somewhere
> more universal?
No :(
> As a first cut, I'd be happy if it just undid the changes to the
> index, even without undoing any interface changes. That is, if my
> previous command was archive-thread-and-view-next-thread, it would be
> OK if it just undid the archiving part. Bonus points if it also undoes
> the view-next part, but I can imagine that being more work.
I know I sound a bit like a broken record here, but immediate
label changes will solve this problem. Then, the undo system would just
need to keep a global stack of (msgid, previous_labels). I'm just hoping
somebody will volunteer for this - it will be a big patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be?
2009-09-10 22:45 ` Rich Lane
@ 2009-09-11 9:16 ` Nicolas Pouillard
2009-09-11 19:52 ` Rich Lane
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pouillard @ 2009-09-11 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
Excerpts from Rich Lane's message of Fri Sep 11 00:45:20 +0200 2009:
> Excerpts from Carl Worth's message of Wed Sep 09 13:32:30 -0400 2009:
> > Would it be a small change to move the undo keybinding to somewhere
> > more universal?
>
> No :(
>
> > As a first cut, I'd be happy if it just undid the changes to the
> > index, even without undoing any interface changes. That is, if my
> > previous command was archive-thread-and-view-next-thread, it would be
> > OK if it just undid the archiving part. Bonus points if it also undoes
> > the view-next part, but I can imagine that being more work.
>
> I know I sound a bit like a broken record here, but immediate
> label changes will solve this problem. Then, the undo system would just
> need to keep a global stack of (msgid, previous_labels). I'm just hoping
> somebody will volunteer for this - it will be a big patch.
What prevent us from having a global stack of (msgid, previous_labels) in
the actual settings?
--
Nicolas Pouillard
http://nicolaspouillard.fr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be?
2009-09-11 9:16 ` Nicolas Pouillard
@ 2009-09-11 19:52 ` Rich Lane
2009-09-11 21:25 ` Nicolas Pouillard
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Rich Lane @ 2009-09-11 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
Excerpts from Nicolas Pouillard's message of Fri Sep 11 05:16:49 -0400 2009:
> Excerpts from Rich Lane's message of Fri Sep 11 00:45:20 +0200 2009:
> > Excerpts from Carl Worth's message of Wed Sep 09 13:32:30 -0400 2009:
> > > Would it be a small change to move the undo keybinding to somewhere
> > > more universal?
> >
> > No :(
> >
> > > As a first cut, I'd be happy if it just undid the changes to the
> > > index, even without undoing any interface changes. That is, if my
> > > previous command was archive-thread-and-view-next-thread, it would be
> > > OK if it just undid the archiving part. Bonus points if it also undoes
> > > the view-next part, but I can imagine that being more work.
> >
> > I know I sound a bit like a broken record here, but immediate
> > label changes will solve this problem. Then, the undo system would just
> > need to keep a global stack of (msgid, previous_labels). I'm just hoping
> > somebody will volunteer for this - it will be a big patch.
>
> What prevent us from having a global stack of (msgid, previous_labels) in
> the actual settings?
Hmm, you may be right. I was thinking that changes weren't propagated
between buffers except on save, but that's wrong because UpdateManager
is called in the keybinding. In that case, the user sees a mostly*
linear series of label changes, so it's safe to have a global undo
stack.
*
User opens thread-index-mode A containing message M with labels L1
User changes labels on A.M to L2
User opens thread-index-mode B containing message M with labels L1
User changes labels on B.M to L3
UpdateManager changes labels on A.M to L3
User hits 'u' - now A.M and B.M have labels L1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be?
2009-09-11 19:52 ` Rich Lane
@ 2009-09-11 21:25 ` Nicolas Pouillard
2009-09-13 21:40 ` Rich Lane
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pouillard @ 2009-09-11 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Rich Lane<rlane at club.cc.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Excerpts from Nicolas Pouillard's message of Fri Sep 11 05:16:49 -0400 2009:
>> Excerpts from Rich Lane's message of Fri Sep 11 00:45:20 +0200 2009:
>> > Excerpts from Carl Worth's message of Wed Sep 09 13:32:30 -0400 2009:
>> > > Would it be a small change to move the undo keybinding to somewhere
>> > > more universal?
>> >
>> > No :(
>> >
>> > > As a first cut, I'd be happy if it just undid the changes to the
>> > > index, even without undoing any interface changes. That is, if my
>> > > previous command was archive-thread-and-view-next-thread, it would be
>> > > OK if it just undid the archiving part. Bonus points if it also undoes
>> > > the view-next part, but I can imagine that being more work.
>> >
>> > I know I sound a bit like a broken record here, but immediate
>> > label changes will solve this problem. Then, the undo system would just
>> > need to keep a global stack of (msgid, previous_labels). I'm just hoping
>> > somebody will volunteer for this - it will be a big patch.
>>
>> What prevent us from having a global stack of (msgid, previous_labels) in
>> the actual settings?
>
> Hmm, you may be right. I was thinking that changes weren't propagated
> between buffers except on save, but that's wrong because UpdateManager
> is called in the keybinding. In that case, the user sees a mostly*
> linear series of label changes, so it's safe to have a global undo
> stack.
he next question is, what else is needed on this undo stack?
Are labels the only interaction we have? Here is what come to my mind:
* contacts (I more and more think that contacts should not be handled by
sup directly, but that's another topic)
* drafts
--
Nicolas Pouillard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be?
2009-09-11 21:25 ` Nicolas Pouillard
@ 2009-09-13 21:40 ` Rich Lane
2009-09-14 16:29 ` Nicolas Pouillard
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Rich Lane @ 2009-09-13 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
Excerpts from Nicolas Pouillard's message of Fri Sep 11 17:25:06 -0400 2009:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Rich Lane<rlane at club.cc.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Nicolas Pouillard's message of Fri Sep 11 05:16:49 -0400 2009:
> >> Excerpts from Rich Lane's message of Fri Sep 11 00:45:20 +0200 2009:
> >> > Excerpts from Carl Worth's message of Wed Sep 09 13:32:30 -0400 2009:
> >> > > Would it be a small change to move the undo keybinding to somewhere
> >> > > more universal?
> >> >
> >> > No :(
> >> >
> >> > > As a first cut, I'd be happy if it just undid the changes to the
> >> > > index, even without undoing any interface changes. That is, if my
> >> > > previous command was archive-thread-and-view-next-thread, it would be
> >> > > OK if it just undid the archiving part. Bonus points if it also undoes
> >> > > the view-next part, but I can imagine that being more work.
> >> >
> >> > I know I sound a bit like a broken record here, but immediate
> >> > label changes will solve this problem. Then, the undo system would just
> >> > need to keep a global stack of (msgid, previous_labels). I'm just hoping
> >> > somebody will volunteer for this - it will be a big patch.
> >>
> >> What prevent us from having a global stack of (msgid, previous_labels) in
> >> the actual settings?
> >
> > Hmm, you may be right. I was thinking that changes weren't propagated
> > between buffers except on save, but that's wrong because UpdateManager
> > is called in the keybinding. In that case, the user sees a mostly*
> > linear series of label changes, so it's safe to have a global undo
> > stack.
>
> he next question is, what else is needed on this undo stack?
>
> Are labels the only interaction we have? Here is what come to my mind:
>
> * contacts (I more and more think that contacts should not be handled by
> sup directly, but that's another topic)
> * drafts
>
What actions on drafts are you thinking of making undoable? Could we
implement them with reserved labels?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be?
2009-09-13 21:40 ` Rich Lane
@ 2009-09-14 16:29 ` Nicolas Pouillard
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pouillard @ 2009-09-14 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
Excerpts from Rich Lane's message of Sun Sep 13 23:40:05 +0200 2009:
> Excerpts from Nicolas Pouillard's message of Fri Sep 11 17:25:06 -0400 2009:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Rich Lane<rlane at club.cc.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Nicolas Pouillard's message of Fri Sep 11 05:16:49 -0400 2009:
> > >> Excerpts from Rich Lane's message of Fri Sep 11 00:45:20 +0200 2009:
> > >> > Excerpts from Carl Worth's message of Wed Sep 09 13:32:30 -0400 2009:
> > >> > > Would it be a small change to move the undo keybinding to somewhere
> > >> > > more universal?
> > >> >
> > >> > No :(
> > >> >
> > >> > > As a first cut, I'd be happy if it just undid the changes to the
> > >> > > index, even without undoing any interface changes. That is, if my
> > >> > > previous command was archive-thread-and-view-next-thread, it would be
> > >> > > OK if it just undid the archiving part. Bonus points if it also undoes
> > >> > > the view-next part, but I can imagine that being more work.
> > >> >
> > >> > I know I sound a bit like a broken record here, but immediate
> > >> > label changes will solve this problem. Then, the undo system would just
> > >> > need to keep a global stack of (msgid, previous_labels). I'm just hoping
> > >> > somebody will volunteer for this - it will be a big patch.
> > >>
> > >> What prevent us from having a global stack of (msgid, previous_labels) in
> > >> the actual settings?
> > >
> > > Hmm, you may be right. I was thinking that changes weren't propagated
> > > between buffers except on save, but that's wrong because UpdateManager
> > > is called in the keybinding. In that case, the user sees a mostly*
> > > linear series of label changes, so it's safe to have a global undo
> > > stack.
> >
> > he next question is, what else is needed on this undo stack?
> >
> > Are labels the only interaction we have? Here is what come to my mind:
> >
> > * contacts (I more and more think that contacts should not be handled by
> > sup directly, but that's another topic)
> > * drafts
> >
>
> What actions on drafts are you thinking of making undoable? Could we
> implement them with reserved labels?
No I think that's fine for now to consider, discarding, editing...
non-undoable actions.
Basically I agree with a global undo stack of labels, I'm just searching for
issues ahead.
--
Nicolas Pouillard
http://nicolaspouillard.fr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-09-14 16:29 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-09-09 17:32 [sup-talk] How hard would a universal undo be? Carl Worth
2009-09-10 14:13 ` William Morgan
2009-09-10 14:35 ` Marc Weber
2009-09-10 22:45 ` Rich Lane
2009-09-11 9:16 ` Nicolas Pouillard
2009-09-11 19:52 ` Rich Lane
2009-09-11 21:25 ` Nicolas Pouillard
2009-09-13 21:40 ` Rich Lane
2009-09-14 16:29 ` Nicolas Pouillard
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox