From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/66307 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Problems with gnus-registry Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:45:04 -0600 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <861w7f8man.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <76sl0vma5q.fsf@dev-d01.ppllc.com> <86k5loxulw.fsf@lifelogs.com> <76tzkoq1t4.fsf@dev-d01.ppllc.com> <868x20wi2a.fsf@lifelogs.com> <76y7a0nyo3.fsf@dev-d01.ppllc.com> <86lk60uwwq.fsf@lifelogs.com> <764pconmz4.fsf@dev-d01.ppllc.com> <86abmfv3ig.fsf@lifelogs.com> <767ihjm5qn.fsf@dev-d01.ppllc.com> <86myqfoxrv.fsf@lifelogs.com> <76y79zkpnx.fsf@dev-d01.ppllc.com> <868x1yp3lr.fsf@lifelogs.com> <86odasai1l.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1203011105 30230 80.91.229.12 (14 Feb 2008 17:45:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:45:05 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M14798@lists.math.uh.edu Thu Feb 14 18:45:28 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JPi9E-0004y9-H5 for ding-account@gmane.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:45:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JPi7p-0001qF-Ft; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:43:57 -0600 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JPi7o-0001q0-5p for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JPi7h-0006TQ-Ve for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0600 Original-Received: from mail.blockstar.com ([170.224.69.95]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1JPi7m-0005aJ-00 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:43:54 +0100 Original-Received: from tzlatanov-ubuntu-desktop.jumptrading.com (unknown [38.98.147.130]) by mail.blockstar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D7B3F8E49 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:20:19 -0800 (PST) X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" X-Hashcash: 1:20:080214:ding@gnus.org::+0ZY/HAt9fuI3F1U:00001nGQ In-Reply-To: (Reiner Steib's message of "Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:29:59 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:66307 Archived-At: On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:29:59 +0100 Reiner Steib wrote: >> They are used differently. Ignored groups are not saved in the >> registry, but they are followed for splitting (this is incorrect, I >> think). Unfollowed groups are not followed by >> gnus-registry-split-fancy-with-parent function but they are saved. >> >> I think the two should be united in one variable, specifically >> gnus-registry-ignored-groups since it's more powerful and should do the >> same thing. RS> As we want to store marks (or "labels") in the registry, wouldn't it RS> make sense to have two different variables? (Though both RS> should/could contain "ignore" in the name, like the related nnmail-* RS> variables.) A user might want to ignore some groups for parent RS> splitting, but want to set marks in these groups. How about naming the single variable gnus-registry-ignored-groups (with the corresponding topic/group parameter registry-ignore), with values like this "nnrss.*" t ; meaning "ignore" "nntp.*" 'nofollow ; meaning "do not follow" "nnml.*" nil ; treat normally It's probably simpler for the users than two separate variables, especially since "do not follow" a group is a milder form of "ignore this group." I think registry labels will not care about this, they don't go by the group at all, they only use the message ID. The entry could have no groups and the labels should still work fine. Ted