Re: Problems with gnus-registry

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:45:04 -0600 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: 

TZ> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:29:59 +0100 Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> 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.

TZ> How about naming the single variable gnus-registry-ignored-groups (with
TZ> the corresponding topic/group parameter registry-ignore), with values
TZ> like this

TZ> "nnrss.*" t         ; meaning "ignore"
TZ> "nntp.*"  'nofollow ; meaning "do not follow"
TZ> "nnml.*"  nil       ; treat normally

TZ> It's probably simpler for the users than two separate variables,
TZ> especially since "do not follow" a group is a milder form of "ignore
TZ> this group."

TZ> I think registry labels will not care about this, they don't go by the
TZ> group at all, they only use the message ID.  The entry could have no
TZ> groups and the labels should still work fine.

Hm, no response on this yet.  Is there a better way?  Any opinions for
or against?

Ted