cached articles

cached articles

[Jack Vinson]

Can someone clear up what we've done to article caching?  

In the past if we had article caching turned on and marked an article with
! or ? (tick or dormant) that article would be cached so that it didn't
disappear when the group went through its expiry process.

Now it sounds like we have broken this behavior by creating a separate mark
(*) which will automagically cache an article.  Is this the case?  If so,
this means that I have to remember to cache articles that I might want to
keep around instead of ticking them, correct?

-- 
Jonathan "Jack" Vinson       jvinson@cheux.ecs.umass.edu
Sunderland, MA               <http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~vinson/home.html>
"Churchill was a shopping bag" - Fatima Mansions

Re: cached articles

[Dave Disser]

> Now it sounds like we have broken this behavior by creating a separate mark
> (*) which will automagically cache an article.  Is this the case?  If so,
> this means that I have to remember to cache articles that I might want to
> keep around instead of ticking them, correct?
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan "Jack" Vinson       jvinson@cheux.ecs.umass.edu


To boot, it looks like you can't cache articles in an nnvirtual group.

--Dave

Re: cached articles

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

jvinson@cheux.ecs.umass.edu (Jack Vinson) writes:

> In the past if we had article caching turned on and marked an article with
> ! or ? (tick or dormant) that article would be cached so that it didn't
> disappear when the group went through its expiry process.
> 
> Now it sounds like we have broken this behavior by creating a separate mark
> (*) which will automagically cache an article.  Is this the case?  If so,
> this means that I have to remember to cache articles that I might want to
> keep around instead of ticking them, correct?

No, both the old way and the new way are supported.  I think that's
covered in the manual.

-- 
Home is where the cat is.

Re: cached articles

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Dave Disser <disser@sdd.hp.com> writes:

> To boot, it looks like you can't cache articles in an nnvirtual group.

You have never been able to cache nnvirtual articles.  I have been
giving it some thought, though -- `E' marks, caching and persistent
articles should "move" down to the component groups.  Sounds like Real
Work to me.

-- 
Home is where the cat is.

Re: cached articles

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

jvinson@cheux.ecs.umass.edu (Jack Vinson) writes:

> In the past if we had article caching turned on and marked an article with
> ! or ? (tick or dormant) that article would be cached so that it didn't
> disappear when the group went through its expiry process.
> 
> Now it sounds like we have broken this behavior by creating a separate mark
> (*) which will automagically cache an article.  Is this the case?  If so,
> this means that I have to remember to cache articles that I might want to
> keep around instead of ticking them, correct?

No, both the old way and the new way are supported.  I think that's
covered in the manual.

-- 
Home is where the cat is.

Re: cached articles

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Dave Disser <disser@sdd.hp.com> writes:

> To boot, it looks like you can't cache articles in an nnvirtual group.

You have never been able to cache nnvirtual articles.  I have been
giving it some thought, though -- `E' marks, caching and persistent
articles should "move" down to the component groups.  Sounds like Real
Work to me.

-- 
Home is where the cat is.