Re: Why is gnus-summary-insert-new-articles considered a limiting command?

[Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc>]

On Sat, Oct 20 2007, Jens Thiele wrote:

> On 11 Okt 2007, Ferran.Jorba@uab.cat wrote:
>> a while ago I learned that the fast (right? optimal?) way to update my
>> imap inbox is with gnus-summary-insert-new-articles (bound to `/ N').
>> However, I've noticed that gnus-summary-pop-limit (`/ w') reverts the
>> situation.  This is strange, moreover when I do some *real* limiting
>> (by subject or author) and then, when I pop those limits Gnus happily
>> goes back to the situation when I first updated my inbox with `/ N',
>> maybe a few hours ago.

So it's how a limiting command is supposed to behave, isn't it?

>> Perhaps I'm not using the right command to update my inbox?  Which
>> should I use?
>
> I use gnus-summary-rescan-group (bound to "M-g" in the summary buffer)

`/ N' is supposed to be faster than `M-g'.

>> Or, why is gnus-summary-insert-new-articles considered a limiting
>> (instead of an updating) command, other than they appear in the
>> same page [1] of the manual?

I don't know why it was implemented like this.  Does anyone recall?
Maybe you can find something in the archives.  It has been added in
2001:

,----[ ChangeLog.2 ]
| 2001-02-22 22:00:00  ShengHuo ZHU  <zsh@cs.rochester.edu>
| 
| 	* gnus-sum.el (gnus-fetch-headers): New function.
| 	(gnus-select-newsgroup): Use it.
| 	(gnus-summary-insert-articles): New function.
| 	(gnus-summary-insert-old-articles): New function.
| 	(gnus-summary-insert-new-articles): New function.
`----

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/