From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rick Moynihan <rick@calicojack.co.uk>
Subject: Re: org-mode & multiple TODO sequences within a file.
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:06:21 +0000
Message-ID: <45FED11D.2020600@calicojack.co.uk>
References: <45F9783C.8050801@calicojack.co.uk>	<1b5202b10a64cf5f04b443c331014035@science.uva.nl>	<45FE866A.1050002@calicojack.co.uk>
	<87bqipp5dw.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HTMJB-0004Da-Ct
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:10:13 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HTMJA-0004D8-BM
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:10:12 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTMJA-0004D3-1k
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:10:12 -0500
Received: from storm.bpweb.net ([83.223.106.8])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <rick@calicojack.co.uk>) id 1HTMHf-0008Hl-SW
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:08:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87bqipp5dw.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Bastien <bzg@altern.org>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Bastien wrote:
> Rick Moynihan <rick@calicojack.co.uk> writes:
> 
>> I can see that my suggestion would add complexity in both code and org
>> files.  Supporting multiple DONE states would be a nice, especially if
>> they integrate properly with the agenda.
> 
> Maybe we could use the same grouping conventions than for tags :
> 
>   #+SEQ_TODO: TODO NEXT INPROGRESS WAITING { ACHIEVED DONE }
> 
> That would make it easy to have several states and just a few logging
> steps.  Consider the next sequence being just *three* states :
> 
>   #+SEQ_TODO: { TODO NEXT } { INPROGRESS WAITING } { ACHIEVED DONE }
>               `-> state 1   |                      |
>                             `-> log-state 2        |
>                                                    `-> state 3    
> 

I quite like the idea of grouping the sequences within braces.  However, 
I think we might be describing (slightly) different things.  To clarify 
what I'd REALLY like to be able to do is to define different sequences, 
for use within a single file, rather than a single sequence made up of 
sub-sequences.

a hypothetical example:

#+SEQ_TODO: { TODO DONE } { BUG RESOLVED } { REQUIREMENTS DESIGN 
DEVELOPMENT TESTING }

This would define 3 sequences which are each for different things, and 
might even be unrelated, though nesting related sequences might be quite 
nice:

* TESTING

** BUG

   Bug report...

*** TODO Identify cause

   Suspect foo is the problem.


Here I've assumed that the last state within each group is the final 
DONE state, though it might also be pretty neat if multiple DONE states 
could be supported.

Anyway, it's just an idea.

Thanks again,

R.