retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Sivaram Neelakantan]

I usually mark articles that I want to read later with a * and it
stays in the group, which is fine.  However they disappear as new new
articles come in and I have to get them back by hitting Y c .  Is there
a way to keep them in the summary buffer but the usual expiry of non
marked articles happen?


sivaram
-- 

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> writes:

> I usually mark articles that I want to read later with a * and it
> stays in the group, which is fine.  However they disappear as new new
> articles come in and I have to get them back by hitting Y c .  Is there
> a way to keep them in the summary buffer but the usual expiry of non
> marked articles happen?

I usually tick the articles, with "!". Does that work the way you want?

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Sivaram Neelakantan]

On Sat, Feb 25 2017,Eric Abrahamsen wrote:

> Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I usually mark articles that I want to read later with a * and it
>> stays in the group, which is fine.  However they disappear as new new
>> articles come in and I have to get them back by hitting Y c .  Is there
>> a way to keep them in the summary buffer but the usual expiry of non
>> marked articles happen?
>
> I usually tick the articles, with "!". Does that work the way you want?
>
>


Right, what's the difference between * and ! then?  I was told to use
* a few years back.  I believe I mentioned that I wanted to keep the
article around indefinitely

sivaram
-- 

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Adam Sjøgren]

Sivaram writes:

> Right, what's the difference between * and ! then?  I was told to use
> * a few years back.  I believe I mentioned that I wanted to keep the
> article around indefinitely

* stores a copy of the article on your local machine (article caching).
! makes the article show in the group, even though it is read (ticking).

See: http://gnus.org/manual/gnus_37.html

So if you are reading articles on a news server with a short retention
time, you probably want to use both.


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "Your problem is you've got no common sense."                Adam Sjøgren
 "I've got PLENTY of common sense!                       asjo@koldfront.dk
  I just choose to ignore it."


_______________________________________________
info-gnus-english mailing list
info-gnus-english@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnus-english

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Enrico Schumann]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Adam Sjøgren writes:

> Sivaram writes:
>
>> Right, what's the difference between * and ! then?  I was told to use
>> * a few years back.  I believe I mentioned that I wanted to keep the
>> article around indefinitely
>
> * stores a copy of the article on your local machine (article caching).
> ! makes the article show in the group, even though it is read (ticking).
>
> See: http://gnus.org/manual/gnus_37.html
>
> So if you are reading articles on a news server with a short retention
> time, you probably want to use both.
>
>
>   Best regards,
>
>     Adam

When 'gnus-use-cache' is t, ticking (!) will also copy the
article to the cache. See http://gnus.org/manual/gnus_42.html .

Kind regards
     Enrico

-- 
Enrico Schumann
Lucerne, Switzerland
http://enricoschumann.net

_______________________________________________
info-gnus-english mailing list
info-gnus-english@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnus-english

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Sivaram Neelakantan]

On Sun, Feb 26 2017,Enrico Schumann wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Adam Sjøgren writes:

[snipped 20 lines]

> When 'gnus-use-cache' is t, ticking (!) will also copy the
> article to the cache. See http://gnus.org/manual/gnus_42.html .
>

if it's set to t (gnus-use-cache), won't all articles be cached?  I
only want to do this for interesting articles


sivaram
-- 


_______________________________________________
info-gnus-english mailing list
info-gnus-english@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnus-english

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Feb 26 2017,Enrico Schumann wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Adam Sjøgren writes:
>
> [snipped 20 lines]
>
>> When 'gnus-use-cache' is t, ticking (!) will also copy the
>> article to the cache. See http://gnus.org/manual/gnus_42.html .
>>
>
> if it's set to t (gnus-use-cache), won't all articles be cached?  I
> only want to do this for interesting articles

Its default value, the symbol 'passive, should do what you want: only
cache articles when you tell it to, with * or !.


_______________________________________________
info-gnus-english mailing list
info-gnus-english@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnus-english

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Enrico Schumann]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Eric Abrahamsen writes:

> Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 26 2017,Enrico Schumann wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Adam Sjøgren writes:
>>
>> [snipped 20 lines]
>>
>>> When 'gnus-use-cache' is t, ticking (!) will also copy the
>>> article to the cache. See http://gnus.org/manual/gnus_42.html .
>>>
>>
>> if it's set to t (gnus-use-cache), won't all articles be cached?  I
>> only want to do this for interesting articles
>
> Its default value, the symbol 'passive, should do what you want: only
> cache articles when you tell it to, with * or !.

Hm, I've just tested this, and with gnus-use-cache set
to 'passive, Gnus does *not* cache articles that I tick
with '!'. It may well be, as always, that I have
something in my .gnus.el that prevents this :-) But it
is also in line with the docs
(http://gnus.org/manual/gnus_42.html):

,----
| To turn caching on, set gnus-use-cache to t. By
| default, all articles ticked or marked as dormant
| will then be copied over to your local cache
| (gnus-cache-directory). 
`----

So only 'articles ticked or marked as dormant' are
copied to the cache, not all articles.


-- 
Enrico Schumann
Lucerne, Switzerland
http://enricoschumann.net

_______________________________________________
info-gnus-english mailing list
info-gnus-english@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnus-english

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Enrico Schumann <es@enricoschumann.net> writes:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Eric Abrahamsen writes:
>
>> Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 26 2017,Enrico Schumann wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Adam Sjøgren writes:
>>>
>>> [snipped 20 lines]
>>>
>>>> When 'gnus-use-cache' is t, ticking (!) will also copy the
>>>> article to the cache. See http://gnus.org/manual/gnus_42.html .
>>>>
>>>
>>> if it's set to t (gnus-use-cache), won't all articles be cached?  I
>>> only want to do this for interesting articles
>>
>> Its default value, the symbol 'passive, should do what you want: only
>> cache articles when you tell it to, with * or !.
>
> Hm, I've just tested this, and with gnus-use-cache set
> to 'passive, Gnus does *not* cache articles that I tick
> with '!'. It may well be, as always, that I have
> something in my .gnus.el that prevents this :-) But it
> is also in line with the docs
> (http://gnus.org/manual/gnus_42.html):
>
> ,----
> | To turn caching on, set gnus-use-cache to t. By
> | default, all articles ticked or marked as dormant
> | will then be copied over to your local cache
> | (gnus-cache-directory). 
> `----
>
> So only 'articles ticked or marked as dormant' are
> copied to the cache, not all articles.

Right, I just looked through the code and it won't enter either * or !
articles into the cache when `gnus-use-cache' is 'passive. I guess
you could set `gnus-use-cache' to t and see what happens. There are
plenty of other knobs to twiddle to reduce the scope of articles that
are cached.

Eric


_______________________________________________
info-gnus-english mailing list
info-gnus-english@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnus-english

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Eric S Fraga]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 418 bytes --]

On Monday, 27 Feb 2017 at 17:09, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>> Hm, I've just tested this, and with gnus-use-cache set
>> to 'passive, Gnus does *not* cache articles that I tick
>> with '!'. It may well be, as always, that I have
>> something in my .gnus.el that prevents this :-) But it
>> is also in line with the docs

So what does the 'passive setting accomplish?
-- 
Eric S Fraga (GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D)

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Ben Bacarisse]

Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:

> On Monday, 27 Feb 2017 at 17:09, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>>> Hm, I've just tested this, and with gnus-use-cache set
>>> to 'passive, Gnus does *not* cache articles that I tick
>>> with '!'. It may well be, as always, that I have
>>> something in my .gnus.el that prevents this :-) But it
>>> is also in line with the docs
>
> So what does the 'passive setting accomplish?

It turns off all automatic caching making it an entirely manual process.
The result is that * saves the article essentially forever (by entering
it into the cache) and M-* removes is from the cache (usually deleting
in the process).

The manual calls this "Persistent Articles" and it's described in the
section after "Article Caching".  I found this a bit confusing.  I'd
have called that setting 'manual' rather than 'passive'.

When gnus-use-cache is t (or anything other than nil or passive) then
the list of marks in gnus-cache-enter-articles (by default dormant and
ticked) will cause articles to be cached, and The marks in
gnus-cache-remove-articles (by default read) will cause them to be
removed.  I think the only risk with setting gnus-use-cache to t is that
the command gnus-jog-cache will try to cache everything unread.

However, I suspect the OP's best choice is setting gnus-use-cache to
passive but then setting the display group parameter to something like

  [unread tick cache]

(That's an array you set it to.)

-- 
Ben.

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Sivaram Neelakantan]

On Thu, Mar 02 2017,Ben Bacarisse wrote:


[snipped 27 lines]

> However, I suspect the OP's best choice is setting gnus-use-cache to
> passive but then setting the display group parameter to something like
>
>   [unread tick cache]
>
> (That's an array you set it to.)

Will  try this out.  Thanks

sivaram
-- 

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Eric S Fraga]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 758 bytes --]

On Thursday,  2 Mar 2017 at 14:49, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:

[...]

>> So what does the 'passive setting accomplish?
>
> It turns off all automatic caching making it an entirely manual process.
> The result is that * saves the article essentially forever (by entering
> it into the cache) and M-* removes is from the cache (usually deleting
> in the process).
>
> The manual calls this "Persistent Articles" and it's described in the
> section after "Article Caching".  I found this a bit confusing.  I'd
> have called that setting 'manual' rather than 'passive'.

Ah, okay, thanks!  Yes, manual may be better than passive but passive
now makes sense.

-- 
Eric S Fraga (GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D)

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Kevin Brubeck Unhammer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 853 bytes --]

Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> čálii:

> On Sun, Feb 26 2017,Enrico Schumann wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Adam Sjøgren writes:
>
> [snipped 20 lines]
>
>> When 'gnus-use-cache' is t, ticking (!) will also copy the
>> article to the cache. See http://gnus.org/manual/gnus_42.html .
>>
>
> if it's set to t (gnus-use-cache), won't all articles be cached?  I
> only want to do this for interesting articles

No, see Info gnus:

     To turn caching on, set ‘gnus-use-cache’ to ‘t’.  By default, all
  articles ticked or marked as dormant will then be copied over to your
  local cache (‘gnus-cache-directory’).  

(That probably shouldn've been mentioned in the docstring for
gnus-use-cache, which is rather misleading: "use the cache to the full
extent of the law" sounds like "cache everything").

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 800 bytes --]

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Sivaram Neelakantan]

On Mon, Feb 27 2017,Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote:


[snipped 12 lines]

>> if it's set to t (gnus-use-cache), won't all articles be cached?  I
>> only want to do this for interesting articles
>
> No, see Info gnus:
>
>      To turn caching on, set ‘gnus-use-cache’ to ‘t’.  By default, all
>   articles ticked or marked as dormant will then be copied over to your
>   local cache (‘gnus-cache-directory’).  
>
> (That probably shouldn've been mentioned in the docstring for
> gnus-use-cache, which is rather misleading: "use the cache to the full
> extent of the law" sounds like "cache everything").
>

so setting cache to t and marking with it ! will keep the article around
forever ignoring the expiry settings too, right?

sivaram
-- 


_______________________________________________
info-gnus-english mailing list
info-gnus-english@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnus-english

Re: retaining marked articles in summary buffer?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, Feb 25 2017,Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>
>> Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I usually mark articles that I want to read later with a * and it
>>> stays in the group, which is fine.  However they disappear as new new
>>> articles come in and I have to get them back by hitting Y c .  Is there
>>> a way to keep them in the summary buffer but the usual expiry of non
>>> marked articles happen?
>>
>> I usually tick the articles, with "!". Does that work the way you want?
>>
>>
>
>
> Right, what's the difference between * and ! then?  I was told to use
> * a few years back.  I believe I mentioned that I wanted to keep the
> article around indefinitely

I really don't know, unfortunately... I think all the cache does is say
"keep a local copy of this message". Not necessarily, "I want this
message visible at all times". From what I've seen, using ! also keeps a
local copy, and keeps it visible. I don't know the difference in intent
between the two.

Eric