GNU bug report logs - #43682
28.0.50; Clean up nnimap server buffers?

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 23:38:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in version 28.0.50

Done: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #38 received at 43682 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 43682 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#43682: 28.0.50; Clean up nnimap server buffers?
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 05:53:26 -0700
Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> On 10/01/20 18:01 PM, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
>> Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>>
>>> It's possible (I'm not claiming to understand all the code) that all we
>>> would need to do is fix `gnus-async-wait-for-article' to replace its
>>> calls to `nntp-find-connection' and `nntp-accept-process-output' with
>>> something generalized. Those two functions deal with directly with
>>> `nntp-connection-alist', so we'd need something that would do the
>>> equivalent with `nnimap-connection-alist'.
>>
>> Yup.
>
> This is something I wouldn't want to tackle until we have generic
> functions.
>
>>> Anyway, in the interest of completing this far less ambitious patch: if
>>> the nnimap connection has timed out, we should remove this connection
>>> from `nnimap-connection-alist', so this version of the patch does that.
>>> If async has opened a second connection, I guess we should leave that
>>> alone, though I don't have too much confidence that the whole process
>>> will recover gracefully from the main connection dying...
>>
>> Well, the connections are separate, and there's all kinds of reasons for
>> the server to close a connection, so...
>>
>>> +	    (unless (memq (process-status (get-buffer-process buffer))
>>> +			  '(open run))
>>
>> Aka `process-live-p'.
>
> I forgot we have that!
>
>> Otherwise looks fine to me (but I haven't tested the code).
>
> Okay, I'll run this for a bit, as well.

Any news here?  Should the fix be installed?




This bug report was last modified 3 years and 222 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.