Re: How about gnus-registry-precious-only-p?

[Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>]

Bob Newell <bobnewell@bobnewell.net> writes:

>> It occurred to me that if you're not using the Gnus registry's
>> split-with-parent functionality, there really isn't any need to let it
>> bloat up with thousands of entries. 
>
> I must agree! For months and months I fought registry bloat
> with little luck. Eventually some patches and fixes came in
> (thank you Eric!) but it still was more than I wanted.
>
> So I went to a system such as what Eric has suggested. Now the
> registry has a small handful of entries that really matter and
> it actually serves a useful purpose.

Okay, that's good enough for me!

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> On Wed, 20 May 2020 12:47:25 -0700 Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> wrote: 
>
> EA> It occurred to me that if you're not using the Gnus registry's
> EA> split-with-parent functionality, there really isn't any need to let it
> EA> bloat up with thousands of entries. If all you're doing with it is
> EA> setting registry marks on messages (or using Gnorb's Gnus<->Org
> EA> tracking, or message tagging), the only entries we ever need are those
> EA> where we've explicitly added "precious" information to a message.
>
> I agree, and think that it should be t by default (keep only precious
> entries).
>
> I would go further and never record non-precious messages on exiting the
> group, to avoid the extra cycles.

I might be misunderstanding, but with the up-thread patch, non-precious
messages shouldn't be made in the first place. The only way

(Which reminds me, now is the right time to come up with a better name
for this option. Maybe `gnus-registry-auto-create-entries', defaulted to
nil?)

> EA> [Gnorb-related addendum: I've never used registry split-with-parent,
> EA> because it seemed like the potential for chaos was high. But if we only
> EA> keep a very controlled number of entries in the registry, this could
> EA> provide an alternate mechanism for creating groups that hold messages
> EA> related to an Org heading. Gnorb can do that now with ephemeral groups,
> EA> but these would be real mail groups: track the first message, move it to
> EA> a group "about" an Org heading, and subsequent replies to that message
> EA> will get moved as well. Hmm, could messages be copied instead of
> EA> moved...?]
>
> I have seen no interest in this, so it's your call whether there are
> enough users to justify the effort.

Well there's one, at least! Maybe that's enough.