Re: "Grandfathering" of Classic/GPL Yanoff articles?

"jcm3.rm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gregg,
>
> I installed NY, then replaced the NY databases with those of the same
> name that were created by GPLY.  These DBs had articles from a couple
> of NGs that I'd previously downloaded; none of them were marked or
> locked or anything (AFAIK) by GPLY.  When I then started NY, I first
> had to use the "Fix Logging Crashes" option; I haven't had any further
> problem with this, I only mention it for completeness.

Thank you for this detail.  It is the first clue I have had towards
reproducing this known problem!

> The two NGs showed up in NY, but with no messages,

Yes, unless you also copied over the NewsGroup*.pdbs, a Re/Index-All must be
done...

> so I reindexed the
> DB.  The messages then showed up, but all were loaded into the first
> NG; the second still showed '0' messages.

This is partly explained in the FAQ:
http://www.PalmYanoff.com/faq.htm#multindx

> The NGs have similar names, of the forms "aaa.bbb.ccc" and
> "aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd".  Could NY be getting confused by the similarity?

Please confirm that you have "Multi Index" UNchecked in Poll Prefs.
What this will do is cause articles crossposted to multiple subscribed NGs
to be indexed ONLY into the first NG which appears in your NG list.  So if
a.b.c is before/above a.b.c.d in your list and all your articles were posted
to both a.b.c and a.b.c.d, they will only be indexed into a.b.c. If you want
the original behaviour, then set the "Multi Index" checkmark and all
articles will be indexed into all possible subscribed NGs.  I will udpate
the FAQ for this question as it will surely come up again.

> Also, I have the second NG set to not be polled; I want to keep the
> articles I have, but not get any new ones for the time being.  Could
> NY not be installing old articles to NGs that are already set to not
> be polled?  Or could it be both of these things together?

No, that only has to do with polling; it does exactly what you are
expecting.

> Lastly, is there any known problem deleting marked records?  I tap in
> the left margin to mark records to be deleted, but "Delete Marked
> Records" doesn't seem to do anything.  However, if I lock all records,
> then unlock the ones I want to delete, "Delete All Unlocked" seems to
> work.  I realize this may be related to the other issue, but thought
> I'd mention it, too.

The records you expected to be deleted, were locked as well as marked,
right?
Locking a record has precedence over the command to delete records.
This is as it should be; a locked record is protected from deletion.
I just retested like this:
A is marked and unlocked, B is marked and locked, C is unmarked and
unlocked, D is unmarked and locked.
The command "Delete marked" deletes only A; this makes sense, no?
There is no way to delete locked records; they must be unlocked first.
Careful use of "Flip Marking" and "Lock Marked" and "Unlock Marked" should
meet everyone's needs...





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/XHfwlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To Post a message, send it to:   [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [email protected] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/yanoff/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/