Breaking a really long thread

[David Bremner]

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg at fifthhorseman.net> writes:

> On Tue 2016-04-05 01:28:43 -0400, David Mazieres wrote:
>> Arguably, I would say either both the In-Reply-To and the References
>> header should be hidden or neither.  Otherwise, what was happening is
>> that I was deleting the In-Reply-To header as it was the only one I saw,
>> and figuring that maybe References was adjusted after the fact based on
>> In-Reply-To.  After all, the message buffer doesn't keep track of the
>> parent message.
>>
>> Unless there's a reason that someone would want to alter In-Reply-To
>> without altering References, it doesn't make sense to show one without
>> the other.
>
> I think i agree with David here, but the fact is that
> message-hidden-headers is derived directly from emacs (in message.el),
> and isn't part of notmuch-emacs at all.
>
> Are these changes worth addressing upstream?

Possibly. Although changing defaults is usually a cesspit of
bikeshedding.  What would we ask, that upstream add In-Reply-To to
message-hidden-headers?

Related, showing hidden headers doesn't actually work very well:

         http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=23252

I thought briefly about overriding the value in notmuch-message-mode,
perhaps by having a defcustom for notmuch-message-hidden-headers.

d