Topics: Two comments

Topics: Two comments

[Per Abrahamsen]

I just started using topics, and they seem very well done.  Two
comments for now, though.  Probably more latter.

- I don't see any reason why everything should be put under a single
top level topic.  The top level topic doesn't provide any information,
and is thus just noice.  If the implementation is easier with a single
root, maybe the display could ignore the root?

- `T r' should default to the current topic.

Re: Topics: Two comments

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

abraham@dina.kvl.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:

> - I don't see any reason why everything should be put under a single
> top level topic.  The top level topic doesn't provide any information,
> and is thus just noice.  If the implementation is easier with a single
> root, maybe the display could ignore the root?

It was much easier to write the code using a single root.  I've also
found it to be quite convenient to have -- all groups that don't
belong to any other topics find their home in that topic, which seems
natural to me.  I also like the fact that you can hide all the groups
just by folding the top-level topic.  

The people who don't like it can just rename it to "".

> - `T r' should default to the current topic.

Yup.  Fix in September Gnus v0.33.

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."

Re: Topics: Two comments

[Per Abrahamsen]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1592 bytes --]

>>>>> "LMI" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:

LMI> It was much easier to write the code using a single root.  I've also
LMI> found it to be quite convenient to have -- all groups that don't
LMI> belong to any other topics find their home in that topic, which seems
LMI> natural to me.  I also like the fact that you can hide all the groups
LMI> just by folding the top-level topic.  

A one-line *Group* buffer doesn't seem very useful to me.

LMI> The people who don't like it can just rename it to "".

Well, this does solve the oddity of having Emacs as a subtopic of
Gnus, but haven't much practical effect otherwise.

----------------------------------------
[  -- 6 ]
  [ Emacs -- 4 ]
      2: nnml:ding.list            Mail to the Gnus list
      1: gnu.emacs.help            
      1: comp.emacs                
  [ People -- 0 ]
  [ Mailing Lists -- 2 ]
      2: nnml:ding.list            Mail to the Gnus list
  [ AT&T -- 0 ]
  [ Iesd -- 0 ]
  [ KVL -- 0 ]
  [ Miscellaneous -- 0 ]
  [ Usenet -- 0 ]
----------------------------------------

What I would like is:

----------------------------------------
[ Emacs -- 4 ]
    2: nnml:ding.list            Mail to the Gnus list
    1: gnu.emacs.help            
    1: comp.emacs                
[ People -- 0 ]
[ Mailing Lists -- 2 ]
    2: nnml:ding.list            Mail to the Gnus list
[ AT&T -- 0 ]
[ Iesd -- 0 ]
[ KVL -- 0 ]
[ Miscellaneous -- 0 ]
[ Usenet -- 0 ]
----------------------------------------

Maybe by setting a
`gnus-group-hide-top-level-topic-and-don't-indent-second-level-topics'
variable?

Re: Topics: Two comments

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

abraham@dina.kvl.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:

> A one-line *Group* buffer doesn't seem very useful to me.

It says how many unread articles there are in all the topics.  Which
is information that would be otherwise unavailable if not for the
root topic.  And I just like being able to fold away everything, but
that may just be me.

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."

Re: Topics: Two comments

[Jens Lautenbacher]

>>>>> "PA" == Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:

>>>>> "LMI" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:
    LMI> It was much easier to write the code using a single root.
	[...]
    PA> A one-line *Group* buffer doesn't seem very useful to me.

    LMI> The people who don't like it can just rename it to "".

    PA> ----------------------------------------
    PA> [  -- 6 ]
    PA>   [ Emacs -- 4 ]
    PA>       2: nnml:ding.list            Mail to the Gnus list
	[...]

    PA> What I would like is:

    PA> ----------------------------------------
    PA> [ Emacs -- 4 ]
    PA>     2: nnml:ding.list            Mail to the Gnus list
	[...]
    PA> Maybe by setting a
    PA> `gnus-group-hide-top-level-topic-and-don't-indent-second-level-topics'
    PA> variable?

I _strongly_ second that. There should also be a variable which would
tell GNUS where to add groups not belonging to any topic yet.
So newly subscribed groups would always added e.g. to `Misc'.

Maybe one could go a little further and provide for the possibility
that new groups (zombies) should be added to a on-the-fly created
topic called e.g. `New Groups'? Maybe with on-the-fly created subtopic
according to their Usenet names?

(I know, it would be better if I actually _coded_ this ...)

       __/__/ __/__/__/ __/            Jens Lautenbacher
         __/    __/    __/
        __/    __/    __/      mailto:jens@ekp.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de
  __/  __/    __/    __/       mailto:jtl@tkm.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de
 __/  __/___ __/___ __/__/__/_________________________________________
  __/__/                     

Re: Topics: Two comments

[Wes Hardaker]

>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:

    abraham@dina.kvl.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
    Per> A one-line *Group* buffer doesn't seem very useful to me.

    Lars> It says how many unread articles there are in all the
    Lars> topics.  Which is information that would be otherwise
    Lars> unavailable if not for the root topic.  And I just like
    Lars> being able to fold away everything, but that may just be me.

I have to agree here...  What DO you want a one line group buffer for?
I mean, WHY do you fold that top group?  What does it give you (other
than a mostly blank screen)?  

Just Curious,
Wes

Re: Topics: Two comments

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

hardaker@ece.ucdavis.edu (Wes Hardaker) writes:

> What DO you want a one line group buffer for?  I mean, WHY do you
> fold that top group?  What does it give you (other than a mostly
> blank screen)?

I don't fold it; I just like being able to do so.  :-)

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."

Re: Topics: Two comments

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Jens Lautenbacher <jtl@tkm.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:

> I _strongly_ second that. There should also be a variable which would
> tell GNUS where to add groups not belonging to any topic yet. 
> So newly subscribed groups would always added e.g. to `Misc'. 

Well, I like the top-level topic method better.  So *there*.  :-)

Maybe something will be done in Red Gnus, though.

> Maybe one could go a little further and provide for the possibility
> that new groups (zombies) should be added to a on-the-fly created
> topic called e.g. `New Groups'? Maybe with on-the-fly created subtopic
> according to their Usenet names?

That would be possibility...  Most of the code for doing so is already
written.

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."