Re: gnus-undo-mode and nnimap

[Toby Speight <streapadair@gmx.net>]

0> In article <iluhf7kqxut.fsf@barbar.josefsson.org>,
0> Simon Josefsson <URL:mailto:simon@josefsson.org> ("Simon") wrote:

Simon> Toby Speight <streapadair@gmx.net> writes:

>> ... if I tick an article and then undo it, it still appears as
>> ticked.  Though I haven't tried, I expect the same is true of other
>> changes (ticked->dormant, perhaps?).

Simon> No, only read-marks are undoable, other marks have never been
Simon> undoable even in other backends.

Ah.  I didn't check this.


Simon> Perhaps we should change this?
Simon>
Simon> It has some complications though.  Should it be possible to
Simon> undo a "Answered" flag?  What would that mean?  And if you undo
Simon> a "dormant" flag, should you remove the article from the cache?
Simon> What about "Saved" flags?  "Downloadable" flags?  "Bookmark"
Simon> flags?  "Expire" flags when using total/auto-expire?
Simon>
Simon> Perhaps we should only allow undo of tick flags.

I think it would be nice (but not essential) to support as much as is
meaningful ;-)

The question of undoing cache entry for ticked/dormant (or, I
guess, manually caching) is particularly tricky, given that it may
be impossible to re-do (if the article has been expired in NNTP,
or deleted from another client in IMAP).

Undoing answers doesn't seem reasonable, given that there's no way to
cancel mail messages - IMO the flag should reflect the state of the
Real World.

It does look like the undoability of flags and marks needs to be
considered on a case-by-case basis :-(.  As a start, I'd suggest all
the marks in "Read Articles" and "Unread Articles" in the manual, and
probably none of the ones in "Other Marks".

Having nnimap consistent with the other backends is a Good Thing, of
course, so I'm pleased with your patch :-).