Stephen Berman <stephen.ber...@gmx.net> writes: > On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 09:36:26 -0700 Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> > wrote: > >> Eric S Fraga <e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk> writes: >> >>> On Sunday, 2 Jul 2023 at 16:59, Eric Abrahamsen wrote: >>>> If everyone's hitting this with NNTP servers, you can set >>>> `nntp-connection-timeout' to a number of seconds. It is nil by default, >>>> which I guess would result in permanent hangs. > > Is this variable supposed to be set in the value of gnus-select-method? > For example, like this: > > (setq gnus-select-method '(nntp "news.gmane.io" > (nntp-connection-timeout 3)))
It's a defvoo, so it can either be set globally, or as a server parameter. >>> So this works, in the sense that it stops me waiting forever... However, >>> it seems (early days yet) that when it fails to open the connection to >>> an NNTP server, it stops retrieving news and I have to hit 'g' again to >>> get the counts etc. updated for other servers. [...] > > That sounds basically like what the function I'm using in place of > gnus-group-get-new-news (see my first post in this thread) does. Could > such a function take effect if added to one of the server hook variables > nntp-server-opened-hook, nntp-server-action-alist or > nntp-open-connection-function? From the descriptions in the manual it > isn't clear to me. Or is there some better Gnus hook variable for this > purpose? If not could one be added? I'm not sure what function you mean. Eric F is just describing the unfortunate behavior of nntp-connection-timeout, which interrupts the entire fetching process when it hits the timeout. >> Yeah, I'd put in a dumb fix for this that turned out to be buggy, so we >> just recently reverted it. I have a more thorough fix in progress >> somewhere here, that would report a server connection failure without >> interrupting the rest of the servers, but it's not done yet. I've had >> very little time for coding recently, but will get to it At Some Point. >> >> Glad it's at least better than it was. I wonder if we should have some >> generous timeout set by default... > > It might make sense to continue this discussion in bug#52735. This doesn't seem like the same issue -- this problem is pretty well understood. Eric
