From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/72924 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: splitting working now : some issues/questions Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:37:54 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <877hhoalzh.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <9i4ocwyc69.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> <87wrpstwvz.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8uy6a67ugj.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> <87sk0ek21m.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87eibyjuyq.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8762xajdh0.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1286804330 32455 80.91.229.12 (11 Oct 2010 13:38:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:38:50 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M21296@lists.math.uh.edu Mon Oct 11 15:38:49 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P5IaT-0003p6-Oo for ding-account@gmane.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:38:46 +0200 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 1P5Ia6-0001n3-Bl; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:38:22 -0500 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 1P5Ia4-0001mn-TO for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:38:20 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P5Ia3-0003xC-CU for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:38:20 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1P5Ia2-0001eP-00 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:38:18 +0200 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P5IZz-0003YM-Tq for ding@gnus.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:38:15 +0200 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:38:15 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:38:15 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 47 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 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" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:tGulONoLNMfPDfO4V+BDbzFqUF4= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:72924 Archived-At: On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:28:10 +0200 Richard Riley wrote: >> 1) to keep Gnus consistent RR> Thats my whole point : Its not consistent. Some places need it RR> qualifying others dont. And if you dont it defaults to the current RR> server. Sorry, can you tell me where, besides the splitting methods, does Gnus take an unqualified group name to mean "in the current server"? I may very well be wrong but I don't know of such behavior. >> 3) because it uses the Gnus "move article" facility, which uses >> qualified names RR> So it can qualify it before calling that? At least some other vars are RR> server local. But if I qualify it, there's no way to pass unqualified group names. IOW if I really did want to move to the primary server's "foo" group, I can't do it now because it means "the current server's 'foo' group". This is the heart of the problem. If you can solve it, I'm much more in favor of the change, despite the documentation change and possible breakage for other spam.el users, because it is sensible. If I get a bunch more people saying "no, do it Richard's way, even if it breaks things" then I'll make that change despite my concerns. That's the voting I was referring to. I don't mean your proposal will be ignored unless there's more votes for it. >> So while it may be that all the other users have been annoyed by that >> but kept quiet, it's more likely it's not a big deal. So unless I hear >> from more people supporting your view, I'd rather keep the status quo. RR> Fine if thats the way you see it. The improvements done to Gnus suggest RR> that "because thats the way its always been" are not the only criteria RR> under consideration while development and improvements take place. No, definitely not. The nnimap.el fixes Lars is doing, for instance, came about because he asked "what needs work" and IMAP support was at the top of the list (even though imap.el was not terribly broken). I worked on the internal GnuTLS support for Emacs because the Gnus SSL/TLS connectivity has been a continuous source of bug reports and complaints. Julien's work was to scratch an itch. So there's all kinds of reasons. Ted