From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/66382 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Problems with gnus-registry Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:03:30 -0600 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <86wsopnmwt.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> <861w7f8man.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 1204210934 16887 80.91.229.12 (28 Feb 2008 15:02:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:02:14 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M14873@lists.math.uh.edu Thu Feb 28 16:02:40 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 1JUkHP-0006Fg-Qn for ding-account@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:02:40 +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 1JUkGq-00080g-UQ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:02:04 -0600 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JUkGp-00080P-Lb for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:02:03 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JUkGj-0005fi-E9 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:02:03 -0600 Original-Received: from mail.blockstar.com ([170.224.69.95]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1JUkGp-00052b-00 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:02:03 +0100 Original-Received: from tzlatanov-ubuntu-desktop.jumptrading.com (unknown [38.98.147.130]) by mail.blockstar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4FA3E8081 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:02:39 -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: 1:20:080228:ding@gnus.org::B/x1EDSX11Yx/7WD:00006Oy3 In-Reply-To: <861w7f8man.fsf@lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:45:04 -0600") 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:66382 Archived-At: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:45:04 -0600 Ted Zlatanov wrote: TZ> 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. 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