Re: Last messages are at the very bottom

[Merciadri Luca]

On 3 août, 13:03, a...@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:40:30 +0200, Merciadri wrote:
> > From mine too, when looking at your output. Anyway, the threads are
> > not sorted this way on my Gnus. I do not think it would be a bug, but
> > I use the same lines as you.
> > Could you copy/paste the lisp code you put in your .gnus file to sort
> > threads this way? I put it in my .gnus file, you too?
>
> I evaluated the *exact lines you posted* (i.e. I put the cursor after
> the last parenthesis and pressed C-x C-e). I didn't put them anywhere, I
> used yours!
>
> You can inspect the value of a variable with C-h v - like so:
>
> ,----[ C-h v gnus-thread-sort-functions RET ]
> | `gnus-thread-sort-functions' is a variable declared in Lisp.
> |   -- loaded from "gnus-sum"
> |
> | Value: (gnus-thread-sort-by-number)
> |
> | Documentation:
> [...]
> `----
>
> That way you can easily check if you have set the variable or not.
>

Thanks. It helped me to see that gnus-thread-sort-functions' value was
actually ``(gnus-thread-sort-by-number)''. I did not understand why,
as I used the same lines as you. I restarted Debian, and it worked
with the option I wanted (i.e. most recent threads on top). Finally, I
agree that it is not a really good idea, but it worths it.



On 3 août, 13:13, a...@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) wrote:
> So you don't want the threads sorted by number, in reverse (which is
> what you specified), you want the threads sorted by "most recent article
> in thread", in reverse?
>
Yes. I think that I was not clear before. Sorry.

> Looking in the manual, I would guess that
> gnus-thread-sort-by-most-recent-number is probably what you are looking
> for:
Yes. Thanks.

On 3 août, 13:21, Richard Riley <rileyrg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a note to the OP - I generally find it very bad practise to order
> articles in a single thread  in "newest first" order. The reason is that
> you should read previous replies before replying and this is done,
> traditionally, by walking down the tree. That way you don't reply or add
> information already contributed earlier in the thread.
Ok. It is a pragmatical point of view that I appreciate.

-- You can thus consider my problem as solved. Thanks to all for your
precious help.