On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:45:48PM -0400, Celejar wrote: >> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:58:40 +0300 >> Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:20:10PM -0400, Celejar wrote: >> > > Package: liferea >> > > Version: 1.6.3-1 >> > > Severity: normal >> > > >> > > Under the main Preferences / Feeds is a setting labeled "Feed cache >> > > handling - >> > > Default number of items per feed to save", and under an individual feed's >> > > Subscription properties / Archive is a setting labeled "Number of items >> > > to >> > > save". Both these preferences and their accompanying descriptions and >> > > context >> > > seem to indicate that they just affect the caching behavior, but on my >> > > installation they actually seem to be the (only) way to control how many >> > > of a >> > > feed's items are actually displayed at all. I think that what these >> > > options >> > > actually do should be clarified. >> > >> > Liferea displays all items it has from this feed, and these are >> > basically the cached items. >> > >> > What do you expect caching to do other than caching the items for >> > displaying them? >> >> >From "Subscription Properties / Archives": >> >> "The cache setting controls if the contents of feeds are saved when >> Liferea exits. Marked items are always saved to the cache." >> >> This implies that the cache settings are relevant to the saving of >> contents when Liferea exits, and not to the much more fundamental >> question of how many and which items are displayed initially. > > "when Liferea exits" might actually be wrong, and should perhaps be > dropped. > >> Obviously, if I mark an item, it's already displayed, which you are >> telling me means that it's already in the cache. What does the last >> line mean, then? > > Let me make an example: > - cache limit 30 items for a feed > - 30 items are already cached > - the oldest cached item is marked > - a feed update brings 20 new items > > Usually, the oldest 20 cached items would now be dropped from the cache. > > But since the oldest item is marked, this item will not be dropped.
This is a correct description, but this is IMO no a sane use case. Why do you set such a small number of cached items? The only thing we could do to prevent such a misconfiguration is to warn each time you set such small values. But at least I do not want to start with confirmation hell... Best Regards, Lars -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
