Re: *nntp-log* differences between M-g and g

[Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 943 bytes --]

>>>>> In <b9yd5vmmpki.fsf@jpl.org> Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:

>>>>>> In <ilu1xc2xyr9.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> Simon Josefsson wrote:

>> Why exactly does g have to issue two GROUP commands for the same
>> group?

>> And should 'g' really need to mess with the marks, except for
>> extending the active range?  Doesn't GROUP give Gnus enough
>> information to do that?

> That's a good point.  It is just an item to which the nntp marks
> should be improved.

The reason two GROUP commands issued when typing `g' is that
nntp.el provides the `nntp-request-update-info' function which
returns non-nil.  Because of this,
gnus-get-unread-articles-in-group calls nntp-request-group which
issues the GROUP command by way of gnus-activate-group.  I think
to issue those commands is of no use to manage the nntp marks.
The patch below avoids those futilities.  Could anyone test it?
I hope the people who are using the nntp marks in daily life
test it.


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/x-patch, Size: 253 bytes --]

--- nntp.el~	2004-11-15 03:59:37 +0000
+++ nntp.el	2005-01-31 12:47:01 +0000
@@ -1074,7 +1074,7 @@
 				(list (cons (car seen) (car seen)))
 			      seen)))
       (nnheader-message 8 "Updating marks for %s...done" group))
-    info))
+    nil))
 
 
 

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 9 bytes --]

Regards,