On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:45:45 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote: > > It doesn't for me with origin/master. Or let me double check... what do > > you think would be the correct order (as this is a matter of taste for > > some people)... > > The order in the reply buffer is fine. But with "m" I get the User-Agent > first which looks a bit strange. Yep, same here. > Dirk also mentioned in IRC that there's a regression with the signature > being mispositioned before the quoted text with a reply buffer. Now that > I've added a signature, I'm noticing this as well. Well - we don't seem to be adding the signature ourselves anymore... I still don't quite understand where and how we hand over to the existing message-mode functions - I why those decide to insert a signature at point. Here's a trivial patch that ALSO adds a signature at the end of the message buffer (where it belongs). But I haven't figured out how to get rid of the one above the reply... diff --git a/emacs/notmuch-mua.el b/emacs/notmuch-mua.el index acb7dbf..493cd0e 100644 --- a/emacs/notmuch-mua.el +++ b/emacs/notmuch-mua.el @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ ;; line and then the body. (with-temp-buffer (call-process notmuch-command nil t nil "reply" query-string) + (message-insert-signature) (goto-char (point-min)) (if (re-search-forward "^$" nil t) (save-excursion > > I think we should make this a "requirement" for patches to include a > > little NEWS blurb and either a test case or an explanation why there > > isn't a test case... > > I've asked for these, but I haven't been pushing hard on this. I will start playing the nagger > Review for some of these simple things would be much appreciated from > anybody on the list, (and would help ensure that patches are more likely > to be ready-to-go once I get them). So let's see more of things like > this from anyone on the list: > > Looks like a great feature---now it just needs a test case. > > I've tested this and it does just what I want. Here's a > follow-on patch that adds an item to the NEWS file for this. > > I can't common on the specific logic of the patch, but I did > notice some trailing whitespace. You'll want to clean that up > and resubmit so the patch won't be rejected. I can do all of those. /D -- Dirk Hohndel Intel Open Source Technology Center