From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/4299 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sudish Joseph Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: gnus-cache redux Date: 07 Dec 1995 21:48:56 -0500 Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science Sender: joseph@cis.ohio-state.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035145064 29105 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:17:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:17:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: The Ding list Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miranova.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA21632 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:46:41 -0800 Original-Received: from news.cis.ohio-state.edu (news.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.8.50]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id ; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 03:49:03 +0100 Original-Received: from rhode.cis.ohio-state.edu (rhode.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.138.3]) by news.cis.ohio-state.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.4) with ESMTP id VAA20383; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 21:49:00 -0500 Original-Received: (joseph@localhost) by rhode.cis.ohio-state.edu (8.6.7/8.6.4) id VAA01990; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 21:48:58 -0500 Original-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen X-Mailer: VM 5.95 (beta), GNU Emacs 19.28.1 In-Reply-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of 07 Dec 1995 11:48:03 +0100 Original-Lines: 29 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:4299 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:4299 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