Re: instead of gnus-cloud.el

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:50:31 +0200 Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> wrote: 

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:06:34 -0400 Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote: 

>> If "cloud" is really unacceptable, this replaces gnus-sync.el so maybe
>> it could take that name. But I would rather explain the joke in the
>> commentary.

RS> That joke might be funny, if it were presented clearly enough that
RS> people could get it.

RS> But please don't put the joke in the file name.  Most people who see
RS> the file name won't know it is a joke.  With them, it will really encourage
RS> the harmful "cloud" meme.

OK, I'll let you and Lars and the maintainers figure it out. Let's do
the rename, if that's the decision, after the current gnus-cloud code is
reviewed and merged, or it will get confusing (because the feature
branch currently removes the old gnus-sync.el).

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:04:48 -0400 Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote: 

RS> Writing for the manual later is ok, but it should have comments in the
RS> file now, don't you think?

I already documented many of the gnus-cloud.el functions in my feature
branch. I'll add more docs to the code and expand the manual after it's
merged, since it's still in progress.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:52:56 -0400 Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote: 

SM> BTW, the text says "imap" but the code (and the name) doesn't look
SM> specific to imap (other than a call to nnimap-request-articles).

Yeah, indeed it may work with nnml right now, but we want to use IMAP
features in the future. For instance I think the native IMAP unique
article ID from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3501#section-2.3.1 will
be better than the current `gnus-cloud-sequence' defvar. And IMAP flags
may be good for separating full vs. incremental updates, which currently
are encoded in the article subject.

Ted