> I'm sorry to say I found it so contrary to the way I work, that I gave up > entirely, until the new version reaches 1.0 -- which, I hope, I hope > (pretty please with sugar on it?) may make it an option whether to > aggregate them. Is there hope? > > Both just feel so wrong, somehow, that they keep me from holding my > attention on what I'm trying to do -- forcing me to concentrate on > stuff I don't even want to know about.
I have to admit this thread baffles me. For the most part, aggregated servers will "just work" without any hoops to jump through. David's complaint makes sense, but I have no idea why aggregation distracts you, Beartooth. As for David's case... when a primary server isn't available, Pan should still download articles from the secondary without fuss. If Pan's attempts to connect to the primary are slowing things down, just make your fast-but-unavailable server your backup and make the slow-but-available server your primary. For a better fix, I like Walt's "disable server" toggle idea. It would be in the server edit dialog. Pan could also show a "do you want to disable server?" dialog when it's unable to connect. Walt, David, does this sound right? Anyway, the idea of having an 'active' server a la 0.14 is a nonstarter IMO as it conflicts with multiserver downloads. I'm happy to hear about specific problems and fixing them with refinements to the current scheme, though. cheers, Charles _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
