On 07/05/23 10:04 AM, Stephen Berman wrote: > On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 20:50:05 -0700 Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> > wrote: > >> Stephen Berman <stephen.ber...@gmx.net> writes: >> >>> On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 10:02:34 -0700 Eric Abrahamsen >>> <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Stephen Berman <stephen.ber...@gmx.net> writes: >> >> [...] >> >>> This: >>> >>> (defun srb-gnus-group-get-new-news (&optional arg one-level) >>> (interactive "P") >>> (with-timeout (1 (kill-buffer (nntp-find-connection-buffer >>> nntp-server-buffer)) >>> (gnus-group-get-new-news)) >>> (gnus-group-get-new-news arg one-level))) >>> >>> (define-key gnus-group-mode-map "g" 'srb-gnus-group-get-new-news) >>> >>>> Eric F is just describing the >>>> unfortunate behavior of nntp-connection-timeout, which interrupts the >>>> entire fetching process when it hits the timeout. >>> >>> Is that different than what the above function does with the kill-buffer >>> sexp? (Not a rhetorical question, I know next to nothing about news >>> servers and their connectivity issues.) >> >> The `nntp-connection-timeout' variable has different behavior in that >> NNTP servers are allowed one "retry" if the connection fails. The code >> around that is very confusing to me (which is why my earlier fix was >> buggy). > > I don't follow you, but no need to elaborate further here. > >>>>>> 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. >>> >>> Hm, I had understood from both Prashant Tak and Eric Fraga that the >>> problem they have is essentially the same as I do and what I reported in >>> that bug. But that problem doesn't seem to be understood. If by the >>> understood problem you mean the effect of nntp-connection-timeout, >>> doesn't that just mean using it isn't a real fix for the hang the three >>> of us (at least) are experiencing? That's why I thought other >>> approaches need to be considered and bug#52735 seems like the >>> appropriate venue for that. But I'm fine with continuing the discussion >>> here instead. >> >> Oh I see what you mean. In your bug report I'd gotten the idea that >> something was going wrong with accepting process output, and had a >> missed-the-forest-for-the-trees moment around it simply being a dead >> process. >> >> Using `nntp-connection-timeout' is the proper fix for this problem, it's >> just got a bit of unfortunate behavior that needs to be remedied. I'd be >> inclined to start a whole new bug report for a fix for that, because >> it's really a new issue, with its own larger-reaching design decisions. >> I suppose we could merge #52735 with that, though. > > Feel free to open a new bug for fixing nntp-connection-timeout. I don't > know if I can help, other than trying out suggestions and providing > feedback. In the meantime I'll keep using my workaround replacement > function. > > But I wonder, could this issue have been triggered by some change in > news.gmane.io around early to mid December 2021? Because that's when > the problem start for me, and prior to that I don't recall ever having > this problem (perhaps sporadically but not with such persistance).
The nntp-connection-timeout variable has been present and nil since 1999. I put my original buggy fix in at the end of October 2021, so that seems suspicious, but that should only have had an effect if you had set nntp-connection-timeout to something other than the default of nil. In general it's pretty hard to say, though...
