Subject: Re: Manual should clearly define "group name"

From: Dave Abrahams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:05:21 -0400

on Sun Sep 11 2011, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi-AT-gnus.org> wrote:

> Dave Abrahams <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Okay, that's useful information that could be in the doc.
>
> Do you have a suggestion where?

In a section on general conventions (you'd say, e.g. "when the doc says
`group name' it means a pattern like this.  The method+server part is
present under these conditions").  If there's no section on general
conventions, you should add one near the beginning of the manual.  I
can think of plenty of general information that could/should go there
and would improve the doc.

>> I'm guessing that if it's a primary select method, it'll be <group> and
>> if a secondary select method it'll be <method>+<server>:<group>.  Is
>> that correct?
>
> Almost.  If it's a non-native group, it'll be the latter.

*...looks up \<native\> in the manual...* so, if I've got that wrong,
there's something I still don't get: how is "non-native" different from
"secondary select method?"  Am I just using the wrong terminology?
(here's something else for the general conventions).

>> Well, but they're more defensive than they need to be, aren't they?
>> They both will match any of the following three patterns.
>>
>>       <method>+<server>:<group>
>>       <server>:<group>
>>       <group>
>>
>>>>From what you've said so far I'm guessing that even if I want to be
>> resilient against servers switching from primary to secondary select
>> methods, the middle pattern is unnecessary.  Is that right?
>
> Yup.

Thanks.  So in general, I'm asking for this kind of information to be
gleanable from the doc, without agumentation by a discussion thread with
Lars :-)

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com