Re: atime/mtime (Was: mutt: 5 new changesets)

2009-06-22 Thread Kyle Wheeler
On Monday, June 22 at 10:43 AM, quoth Derek Martin: On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 04:43:27PM +0200, Moritz Barsnick wrote: I think this behavior is not desired. I meant to add that if you want to mark something that needs your attention, but *don't* want to treat it as new (unseen) mail, then you sh

Re: atime/mtime (Was: mutt: 5 new changesets)

2009-06-22 Thread Derek Martin
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 04:43:27PM +0200, Moritz Barsnick wrote: > I think this behavior is not desired. I meant to add that if you want to mark something that needs your attention, but *don't* want to treat it as new (unseen) mail, then you should not leave it marked new; you should instead flag

Re: atime/mtime (Was: mutt: 5 new changesets)

2009-06-22 Thread Derek Martin
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 04:43:27PM +0200, Moritz Barsnick wrote: > I applied these two on top of 1.5.20. But I think changeset > 5922:9ae13dedb5ed doesn't make sense to me. If I leave any mail marked > as new (which I do if I intend to yet read it or work on it) in any > folder, mutt marks the who