minor issues with vm-color and rfaddons after latest update

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:44 PM, mere user <email address hidden>wrote:

> Public bug reported:
>
> hi, not really bugs, but two minor issues:
>
> 1) coloring of summary buffer using u-vm-color is strange now, see
> attached tiff file
>
> That one is my fault. I have been working on getting the default face
values and had forgotten I had set them to quite extreme values to make it
easier to know when different faces were being used. Will fix this and
provide updates in the next day or so. Note that you can now use M-x
customize-face to change the settings for any of the faces used by VM.

With the summary colours stuff loaded, we have quite a few different faces.
The plan is to set them by default to use various standard Emacs/Xemacs
faces. However, I'd be interested in hearing which faces people would prefer
the defaults to be. Some are fairly obvious choices IMO. For example, under
Emacs, using 'link for hyperlinks, 'highlight for the summary buffer
hilighted message and 'button or widget-button for vm-mime-button etc. Other
faces are less obvious - for example vm-summary-deleted,
vm-summary-forwarded, vm-summary-saved etc. All of these will be set by
default to inherit from one of the standard faces, such as one of the
font-lock-* faces, but which ones to use for these cases is less obvious.

> 2) there is a long delay after rfaddons: options activated message, even
> if I call it with a 0.1 sec argument.
>
> Don't know about this one. I don't see this and am not aware of any changes
to the rfaddons that might cause it.

Keep the feedback coming, it is very useful!

Tim

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:44 PM, mere user <email address hidden>wrote:

> Public bug reported:
>
> hi, not really bugs, but two minor issues:
>
> 1) coloring of summary buffer using u-vm-color is strange now, see
> attached tiff file
>
> OK, had a quick look into this. Not sure now that it was my fault! What I
> think is happening is that you are getting weird interactions between
> vm-summary-faces.el and u-vm-color.el. However, I'm surprised this has
> happened after the merging in of my changes to custom as I've not modified
> either the definitions for these faces or the u-vm-color.el faces (I did
> change the custom group, but that should not affect anything other than how
> things are displayed/grouped when running customize). Had it been a while
> since your last updated? Just wondering if this could be something from the
> updates done to vm-summary-faces.el, which was done back in August last
> year.

The u-vm-color.el package is an add-on and not currently supported. However,
I think that now Uday has incorporated the vm-summary-faces.el into VM core,
we probably should modify u-vm-color.el so that it only adds fontification
to the message buffer and not the summary buffer to avoid weird conflicts.
According to a message I saw in u-vm-color, you cannot turn off summary
fontification done by that package to the summary buffer - its all or
nothing. This could be a problem for those who want message buffer
fontification and use u-vm-colour for that. Even just adding the ability to
turn it off and turning it off by default may be sufficient as a quick fix.
I will put it on the list of things to look at.

In the meantime, you can probably improve the look of your faces by tweaking
the definitions for the u-vm-color faces (and maybe the vm-summary-faces). I
noticed that some of the u-vm-color faces appear to have hard wired values
and also noticed a function to copy definitions from the gnus faces, which I
think is the wrong way to handle such things (better to use the :inherit
option).

I realise having to do this sort of tweaking is less than optimal, but until
we have time/resources to address issues in the add-on packages, it is the
only option. We need to focus on fixing things in the main core and getting
8.2.0 out for now.

If you do find alternative settings which seem to work/behave better, let us
know. Maybe we can update the u-vm-faces.el defaults to work better with
vm-summary-faces.el.

Tim

mere user writes:

> 1) coloring of summary buffer using u-vm-color is strange now, see
> attached tiff file

Hi Eli, can you check whether the problem is occurring with revision
1020?

> 2) there is a long delay after rfaddons: options activated message, even
> if I call it with a 0.1 sec argument.

I haven't seen this problem. The only thing that has changed in
vm-rfaddons is that I have removed gnus-group from the load list. If
you are depending on that, you might try loading gnus-group from your
.emacs or .vm file, and see if that makes a difference.

Again, if you can narrow down which revision caused the problem, that
would be useful.

Cheers,
Uday

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Uday Reddy <email address hidden> wrote:
> mere user writes:
>
>> 1) coloring of summary buffer using u-vm-color is strange now, see
>> attached tiff file
>
> Hi Eli, can you check whether the problem is occurring with revision
> 1020?

sure. sorry for being such an ignorant, but do you mind reminding me
how I go back to a given revision? thanks for all the responses...
cheers, E

mere user writes:

> sure. sorry for being such an ignorant, but do you mind reminding me
> how I go back to a given revision? thanks for all the responses...
> cheers, E

bzr revert -r 1020 will take you to revision 1020.

bzr log -l 10 will show you the last 10 revisions.

Cheers,
Uday

version 1020 doesn't have the strange summary coloring. what do you
guys use for message, reply and summary coloring?

as for the rfaddons delay, please dont spend time looking at that, I
wonder if it's just the next step in my .vm (identifying smtp server)
that takes too long. I'll check monday from the office. best, E

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Uday Reddy <email address hidden> wrote:
> mere user writes:
>
>> sure.  sorry for being such an ignorant, but do you mind reminding me
>> how I go back to a given revision?  thanks for all the responses...
>> cheers, E
>
> bzr revert -r 1020 will take you to revision 1020.
>
> bzr log -l 10 will show you the last 10 revisions.
>
> Cheers,
> Uday
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/709214
>
> Title:
>  minor issues with vm-color and rfaddons after latest update
>
> Status in VM (View Mail) for Emacs:
>  New
>
> Bug description:
>  hi, not really bugs, but two minor issues:
>
>  1) coloring of summary buffer using u-vm-color is strange now, see
>  attached tiff file
>
>  2) there is a long delay after rfaddons: options activated message,
>  even if I call it with a 0.1 sec argument.
>
>  cheers, E
>
> To unsubscribe from this bug, go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/vm/+bug/709214/+subscribe
>

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:02 AM, mere user <email address hidden>wrote:

> version 1020 doesn't have the strange summary coloring. what do you
> guys use for message, reply and summary coloring?
>
> For summary, I use vm-summary-faces.el, which Uday brought into core last
> August. It was (I think) originally part of rfaddons.
>

   For message composition, I don't do anytihing specific. Quoted text is
formatted with the font-lock-comment-face. The To: and Subject: headers are
also coloured.

   Note that Uday is working on moving from mail-mode to message-mode for
message composition/editing. I beleive this has font-lock support already.

   The core VM does not have any faces for message presentation. I don't do
any colourising of message presentation at present. The u-vm-color.el
package does do this, but also summary font locking, which I suspect mayl
conflict with vm-summary-faces.

   When I get time, I will look at u-vm-color.el and see if we can extract
the presentation font-locking into a vm-presentation-faces.el (or whatever)
that only includes font-locking for the presentation buffer. This would
avoid any potential conflict/confusion with using u-vm-color and
vm-summary-faces.

   In the meantime, you can probably get consistent results by customizing
the faces used by u-vm-color and vm-summary-faces.

Tim

P.S. Note that I got Uday to revert the default highlight face from being
reverse video to just being bold. This may well improve the odd results you
observed with the previous commit.