a small idea for repeating tasks

a small idea for repeating tasks

[Samuel Wales]

When you try to mark a repeating task done, org appears to
change it to the first item in org-todo-keywords.  Many
people have "TODO" there.  This appears to conflict with other uses of
that variable, as it also determines sort order and cycle order.

Perhaps a new variable can contain the todo keyword that
should be used when a repeating task is marked done.

Then it doesn't matter what sort order you use.

Thanks.

-- 
Myalgic encephalomyelitis denialism is causing death and severe suffering,
worse than MS.  Conflicts of interest are destroying research.  /You/ can
get the disease at any time permanently.  Do science and justice matter to
you?  http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm

Re: a small idea for repeating tasks

[Charles Cave]

Samuel Wales <samologist <at> gmail.com> writes:

> When you try to mark a repeating task done, org appears to
> change it to the first item in org-todo-keywords.  Many
> people have "TODO" there.  This appears to conflict with other uses of
> that variable, as it also determines sort order and cycle order.

I noticed this as well.  My configuration has:

#+SEQ_TODO: TODO(t) STARTED(s) REPEAT(r) WAITING(w) APPT(a) | DONE(d)
CANCELLED(c) DEFERRED(f)

I set up repeating tasks with a keyword of REPEAT (to exclude from
TODO lists) but as you observed, changing to done resets the keyword
to REPEAT.

Perhaps the functionality of changing to DONE needs to remember
what the state was before changing to DONE?

Charles

Re: a small idea for repeating tasks

[Charles Cave]

I meant it changes it back to TODO, not REPEAT

Re: a small idea for repeating tasks

[Carsten Dominik]

On Jun 26, 2009, at 5:55 AM, Samuel Wales wrote:

> When you try to mark a repeating task done, org appears to
> change it to the first item in org-todo-keywords.  Many
> people have "TODO" there.  This appears to conflict with other uses of
> that variable, as it also determines sort order and cycle order.
>
> Perhaps a new variable can contain the todo keyword that
> should be used when a repeating task is marked done.
>
> Then it doesn't matter what sort order you use.
>
> Thanks.

This is because you have set up your TODO keywords as `sequence',
not as `type'.  So the repeater assumes that this is a sequence
of states that should be repeated.

If you did

#+TYP_TODO: TODO(t) STARTED(s) REPEAT(r) WAITING(w) APPT(a) | DONE(d)
CANCELLED(c) DEFERRED(f)

this would work as you expect.

Type or sequence make a difference only in two situations:

1. When the repeater rests an entry
2. When you press C-c C-t and *don't* use fast access keys
    to TODO states.  Then `C-c C-t' will jump directly to DONE
    from any not-done state.

Sounds pretty consistent to me.

I guess we could have a property to force a particular repeat state
where needed....

- Carsten

>
> --  
> Myalgic encephalomyelitis denialism is causing death and severe  
> suffering,
> worse than MS.  Conflicts of interest are destroying research.  / 
> You/ can
> get the disease at any time permanently.  Do science and justice  
> matter to
> you?  http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: a small idea for repeating tasks

[Samuel Wales]

Yes, that seems to work for me.

Thank you.


On 2009-06-26, Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:
> Type or sequence make a difference only in two situations:
>
> 1. When the repeater rests an entry
> 2. When you press C-c C-t and *don't* use fast access keys
>     to TODO states.  Then `C-c C-t' will jump directly to DONE
>     from any not-done state.