Re: gnus-cache redux

[Sudish Joseph <joseph@cis.ohio-state.edu>]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes:
> While I'm revising gnus-cache, I wonder whether I should do more.  I'm
> not really satisfied with the method Gnus uses for entering/removing
> stuff from the cache -- it's all based on the article marks, and it
> feels a bit kludgy.  I'm also wondering how to fit that "persistent
> article" thingie into the scheme.

> I'm open to ideas.  If you've given gnus-cache some thought, speak now
> or forever hold your tongue.  (Ick!)

I had, back in the 90's (sounds cool that way :-).  I think I mailed
you some suggestions which I no longer have a copy of.  

All I remember is that the cache should be dissociated with ticking.
Essentially, I'd prefer the cache to be a better way of doing what I
currently do using gnus-summary-copy-article.  I.e., articles in the
cache should have their own enter-cache/delete-from-cache commands,
and their own mark.  Ticked articles would be entirely separate.  I
often tick articles that I plan to reply to later, while  I use
gnus-summary-copy-article when I wish to retain the article for longer
periods.  Having one interface to both is kludgy, IMO, and is the only
reason I stopped using the cache.  (Disk quotas prevent me from
ticking as much as I'd like if I use the cache.)

I don't know what the "persistent articles" refered to above are, but
they too should probably be kept away from the tick/untick interface
if they involve making a local copy.

-Sudish