Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] emacs: Let the user choose where to compose new mails

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] emacs: Let the user choose where to compose new mails

Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 07:38:52 -0400

To: Aaron Ecay, Jameson Graef Rollins, Thomas Jost,


From: David Bremner

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:54:41 -0500, Aaron Ecay <> wrote:

> I just tried, and I cannot reproduce this behavior.  IIUC, here is what
> happened to you: you set nm-mua-compose-in to 'new-window.  You began a
> new message, this opened a new window as expected.  Your emacs frame now
> has two windows in it.  You sent this message, which deleted the window
> showing it.  Your emacs frame was deleted as well, which made the other
> window, showing notmuch-hello (or some other notmuch buffer, from which
> you began writing the email message) disappear as well, unexpectedly.
> Is this a correct description of what happened?

Yes, although it happened quickly enough I'm not sure the window was
deleted before the frame.

> Here’s the recipe I used for replicating:
> emacs -q --daemon
> emacsclient -c
> C-x b *scratch*
> (add-to-list 'load-path "/path/to/notmuch/emacs/") C-j
> (load-library "notmuch") C-j
> C-x C-f /path/to/notmuch/emacs/notmuch-mua.el
> M-x eval-buffer (in order to pick up changes not in byte-compiled file)
> M-x customize-variable notmuch-mua-compose-in (set to 'new-window, save for session)
> M-x notmuch
> m (new window is created in current frame, below the window showing notmuch-hello)
> (type mail)
> C-c C-c (enter smtp settings, since emacs doesn’t know them)
> (new window disappears, the window with notmuch-hello fills whole frame)

It sounds plausible. On Debian I was a bit lazy and relied on the Debian
site startup file, which I attach.  Note that the setting of 'new-window
seems broken to me without emacsclient as well. In this case it buries
the notmuch-hello buffer that the compose window was launched from.

> I also tried with notmuch-mua-compose-in set to 'new-frame, and got the
> expected behavior (m -> create new frame, C-c C-c -> new frame is
> deleted)

Yes, that one seems fine; perhaps because deleting the frame is the
desired outcome in this case.

> What version of emacs did you have this problem with?  


50notmuch.el (application/emacs-lisp)