Re: drafts and expiry-target problem and solution

[Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 594 bytes --]

>>>>> Nils Ackermann wrote:

> On second thought it appears to me that `message-disassociate-draft'
> shouldn't rely on `nnmh-request-expire-articles' to delete the mail
> from the drafts group.  It should just delete it.  Is there any deep
> reason for this choice?

I agree that `message-disassociate-draft' always deletes a draft
backup since it differs from a normal message, i.e., it has a
header separator, etc.  But `nndraft-request-expire-articles',
that uses `nnmh-request-expire-articles', is easy to use because
it knows what draft to be deleted, I think.  A corner-cutting way
is:


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/x-patch, Size: 510 bytes --]

--- nnmh.el~	2008-03-18 22:47:32 +0000
+++ nnmh.el	2008-03-19 05:29:22 +0000
@@ -257,8 +257,10 @@
   (nnmh-possibly-change-directory newsgroup server)
   (let ((is-old t)
 	(nnmail-expiry-target
-	 (or (gnus-group-find-parameter newsgroup 'expiry-target t)
-	     nnmail-expiry-target))
+	 (if (string-equal newsgroup "nndraft:drafts")
+	     'delete
+	   (or (gnus-group-find-parameter newsgroup 'expiry-target t)
+	       nnmail-expiry-target)))
 	article rest mod-time)
     (nnheader-init-server-buffer)
 

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 528 bytes --]

>>> A quick grep through source (by parameter names) showed that there are
>>> many places where (general) group parameters aren't honored, even if
>>> they should be.  Potentially this gives rise to a lot of bugs that
>>> seem unrelated.  Probably there are also more places where the full
>>> group specification is missing in using `gnus-group-find-parameter'.

> This seems much more serious to me.  I am considering helping to
> rectify this.  Please instruct me about signing the papers.

Thanks.  I sent a recipe to you.