Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

I have identified a problem. Let a user set the files to be used for
Org Agenda in .emacs as follows, and consider the situation when the
file writing.rcl.org does not exist.

(setq org-agenda-files
   '("~/02histr/gadmin/writing.rcl.org"
     "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org"
     "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org"))

Emacs demands that the file writing.rcl.org be removed from org-agenda-files.
Then Emacs sabotages the user's settings by hardwiring org-agenda-files at the
end of the file .emacs by inserting:

(custom-set-variables
;; custom-set-variables was added by Custom.
;; If you edit it by hand, you could mess it up, so be careful.
;; Your init file should contain only one such instance.
;; If there is more than one, they won't work right.
'(org-agenda-files
    '("~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org" "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org")))

This should be considered a bug.

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Tom Gillespie]

Here is a workaround. Emacs klobbering settings in .emacs has caused
many issues for me in the past. The solution I finally came up with
was to ensure that custom variables are loaded before any of my
settings. Near the top of my .emacs (before any calls to setq) I have
the following:

;;;; custom set variables
;;; PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE EXIT AND STAY OUT OF MY INIT FILE
;;; These come first so that they will be overwritten by settings in packages
;;; in order to prevent stale variables from klobbering new values
(setq custom-file (expand-file-name  "custom.el" user-emacs-directory))
(when (file-exists-p custom-file)
  (load custom-file))

If you have that then your list will be retained. However Emacs will
probably continue to ask you to remove the missing file until some
file exists at that path. Not sure about the org agenda behavior for
missing files since I populate org-agenda-files by scanning folders
for existing org files and then having a blacklist to exclude files I
do not want.

Best,
Tom

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Jean Louis]

* daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-11-29 21:54]:
> I have identified a problem. Let a user set the files to be used for
> Org Agenda in .emacs as follows, and consider the situation when the
> file writing.rcl.org does not exist.
> 
> (setq org-agenda-files
>    '("~/02histr/gadmin/writing.rcl.org"
>      "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org"
>      "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org"))
> 
> Emacs demands that the file writing.rcl.org be removed from org-agenda-files.
> Then Emacs sabotages the user's settings by hardwiring org-agenda-files at the
> end of the file .emacs by inserting:

I know that nugging. Look what I have found for variable
`org-agenda-files' by using inspection with
{C-h v RET org-agenda-files RET}

,----
| Documentation:
| The files to be used for agenda display.
| 
| If an entry is a directory, all files in that directory that are matched
| by ‘org-agenda-file-regexp’ will be part of the file list.
| 
| If the value of the variable is not a list but a single file name, then
| the list of agenda files is actually stored and maintained in that file,
| one agenda file per line.  In this file paths can be given relative to
| ‘org-directory’.  Tilde expansion and environment variable substitution
| are also made.
| 
| Entries may be added to this list with ‘M-x org-agenda-file-to-front’
| and removed with ‘M-x org-remove-file’.
`----

Maybe you could try the approach to customize it not to be a list by
single file name. Then in that file name you put files one by one.

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 9:07 PM
> From: "Tom Gillespie" <tgbugs@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> Here is a workaround. Emacs klobbering settings in .emacs has caused
> many issues for me in the past. The solution I finally came up with
> was to ensure that custom variables are loaded before any of my
> settings. Near the top of my .emacs (before any calls to setq) I have
> the following:
>
> ;;;; custom set variables
> ;;; PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE EXIT AND STAY OUT OF MY INIT FILE
> ;;; These come first so that they will be overwritten by settings in packages
> ;;; in order to prevent stale variables from klobbering new values
> (setq custom-file (expand-file-name  "custom.el" user-emacs-directory))
> (when (file-exists-p custom-file)
>   (load custom-file))

Would this affect my own custom

(custom-set-variables)

(custom-set-faces
   ;; '(font-lock-comment-face ((t (:foreground "#000000"))))
   '(font-lock-keyword-face ((t (:foreground "#FFDD00"))))    ; yellow
   '(font-lock-type-face ((t (:foreground "#FFDD00"))))    )  ; yellow


> If you have that then your list will be retained. However Emacs will
> probably continue to ask you to remove the missing file until some
> file exists at that path. Not sure about the org agenda behavior for
> missing files since I populate org-agenda-files by scanning folders
> for existing org files and then having a blacklist to exclude files I
> do not want.

Yes it gives you hell in its demand to delete or abort, rather than
ignoring the file.

That's why I called the problem a bug.  If you don't find the file, ignore it.

> Best,
> Tom
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 9:15 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> * daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-11-29 21:54]:
> > I have identified a problem. Let a user set the files to be used for
> > Org Agenda in .emacs as follows, and consider the situation when the
> > file writing.rcl.org does not exist.
> > 
> > (setq org-agenda-files
> >    '("~/02histr/gadmin/writing.rcl.org"
> >      "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org"
> >      "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org"))
> > 
> > Emacs demands that the file writing.rcl.org be removed from org-agenda-files.
> > Then Emacs sabotages the user's settings by hardwiring org-agenda-files at the
> > end of the file .emacs by inserting:
> 
> I know that nugging. Look what I have found for variable
> `org-agenda-files' by using inspection with
> {C-h v RET org-agenda-files RET}
> 
> ,----
> | Documentation:
> | The files to be used for agenda display.
> | 
> | If an entry is a directory, all files in that directory that are matched
> | by ‘org-agenda-file-regexp’ will be part of the file list.
> | 
> | If the value of the variable is not a list but a single file name, then
> | the list of agenda files is actually stored and maintained in that file,
> | one agenda file per line.  In this file paths can be given relative to
> | ‘org-directory’.  Tilde expansion and environment variable substitution
> | are also made.
> | 
> | Entries may be added to this list with ‘M-x org-agenda-file-to-front’
> | and removed with ‘M-x org-remove-file’.
> `----
> 
> Maybe you could try the approach to customize it not to be a list by
> single file name. Then in that file name you put files one by one.
 
Yes, but initially people and going to take my dani.el file and if they
happen to delete their file, the whole setup will break down.  

Org should stop trying to delete the file from the list.

One can use 
(file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/*.org")

Not everyone wants agenda to simply use all the files.
For instance I usually want agenda on just a few projects in the
directory.  I have all the files exist now so do not get problems.
 
But, for those coping the file and trying to get it to work is fraught
with difficulties, with emacs trying to do weird things behind your
back.

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Jean Louis]

* daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-11-29 23:46]:
> Yes, but initially people and going to take my dani.el file and if
> they happen to delete their file, the whole setup will break down.

If you wish to relate the settings to a file, you may use file local
variables so when you give them dani.el that variable get defined
already in dani.el so that it is self-contained.

- M-x add-file-local-variable

- org-agenda-files

- '("~/Org/my-file") or expand your list

Then you get this on the end of file:

> Local Variables:
> org-agenda-files: '("~/Org/my-file")
> End:

That would work local file functions using `org-agenda-files' but it
will not work for for invokation outside of file.

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Tom Gillespie]

> Would this affect my own custom

What I did when I migrated was to manually move the existing
custom-set-variables and custom-set-faces from .emacs to the new
custom-file (in my case ~/.emacs.d/custom.el), that way the old
definitions will still be loaded. All new customizations will live in
custom-file. I'm not sure what would happen if the old definitions
were still in .emacs, regardless, a good time to make a backup of
.emacs just in case. Best,
Tom

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Kyle Meyer]

daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:

>> From: "Tom Gillespie" <tgbugs@gmail.com>
[...]
>> If you have that then your list will be retained. However Emacs will
>> probably continue to ask you to remove the missing file until some
>> file exists at that path. Not sure about the org agenda behavior for
>> missing files since I populate org-agenda-files by scanning folders
>> for existing org files and then having a blacklist to exclude files I
>> do not want.
>
> Yes it gives you hell in its demand to delete or abort, rather than
> ignoring the file.
>
> That's why I called the problem a bug.  If you don't find the file, ignore it.

If you want non-existing/unreadable files to be skipped, you can
configure org-agenda-skip-unavailable-files to a non-nil value.

That option unfortunately isn't mentioned in the manual or the docstring
of the org-agenda-files option.  If anyone is interested, a patch
improving the documentation would of course be appreciated.

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 10:02 PM
> From: "Kyle Meyer" <kyle@kyleam.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Tom Gillespie" <tgbugs@gmail.com>, "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:
>
> >> From: "Tom Gillespie" <tgbugs@gmail.com>
> [...]
> >> If you have that then your list will be retained. However Emacs will
> >> probably continue to ask you to remove the missing file until some
> >> file exists at that path. Not sure about the org agenda behavior for
> >> missing files since I populate org-agenda-files by scanning folders
> >> for existing org files and then having a blacklist to exclude files I
> >> do not want.
> >
> > Yes it gives you hell in its demand to delete or abort, rather than
> > ignoring the file.
> >
> > That's why I called the problem a bug.  If you don't find the file, ignore it.
>
> If you want non-existing/unreadable files to be skipped, you can
> configure org-agenda-skip-unavailable-files to a non-nil value.
>
> That option unfortunately isn't mentioned in the manual or the docstring
> of the org-agenda-files option.  If anyone is interested, a patch
> improving the documentation would of course be appreciated.

Yes, there are problems with the documentation.  I noticed recently that
some guy criticised the manual, and so many got super defensive.  You should
give him a medal for telling you how things are.

Thanks for mentioning it.  If it was written up, I would not have bothered
anyone who typically flame up by work.  We all got work to do, not only
people at Gnu.  After all, it is the FSF who continually campaigns
in favour of free software and to use Gnu Tools.  Bad responses to
those asking for help - on a mailing list that emacs admin made - ends
up destroying their good work.  I only say this because I want you to
succeed.

Thanks again

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[TRS-80]

On 2020-11-29 17:08, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> 
> Yes, there are problems with the documentation.  I noticed recently 
> that
> some guy criticised the manual, and so many got super defensive.  You 
> should
> give him a medal for telling you how things are.

I guess in my mind, complaining about the manual, to a bunch of
volunteers and fellow users, is probably on the pretty unhelpful end of
the scale.

Making constructive criticism is then slightly better, at least you are
not deriding (mostly volunteer) people's work and effort.  Although not
by much, as this still does not require too much effort.

However submitting a patch with an improvement to the documentation is
quite valuable.  Pretty much on the opposite end of the scale in fact.
And thus, only this level of contribution "deserves a medal" as far as I
am concerned.

I was not privy to particulars of conversation you mention, although I
have seen this sort of entitled attitude often enough in F/LOSS to have
somewhat of an idea of how it might have played out.

Entitled users becoming demanding of things they expect (for free, no
less) is not just a drag, it's the cancer that slowly kills F/LOSS
projects.  As eventually actually valuable contributors (maintainers,
devs, etc.) have had enough of it, get burnt out and leave the project.
I have seen it far too many times over the years.

So I imagine what you witnessed was a sort of natural defense mechanism,
protecting the overall health of the community and project by having a
strong reaction to such negative attitudes.

Cheers,
TRS-80

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 at 4:59 AM
> From: "TRS-80" <trs-80@isnotmyreal.name>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Kyle Meyer" <kyle@kyleam.com>, "Tom Gillespie" <tgbugs@gmail.com>, "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>, "Emacs-orgmode" <emacs-orgmode-bounces+orgmode.trs-80=isnotmyreal.name@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> On 2020-11-29 17:08, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> >
> > Yes, there are problems with the documentation.  I noticed recently
> > that
> > some guy criticised the manual, and so many got super defensive.  You
> > should
> > give him a medal for telling you how things are.
>
> I guess in my mind, complaining about the manual, to a bunch of
> volunteers and fellow users, is probably on the pretty unhelpful end of
> the scale.
>
> Making constructive criticism is then slightly better, at least you are
> not deriding (mostly volunteer) people's work and effort.  Although not
> by much, as this still does not require too much effort.
>
> However submitting a patch with an improvement to the documentation is
> quite valuable.  Pretty much on the opposite end of the scale in fact.
> And thus, only this level of contribution "deserves a medal" as far as I
> am concerned.
>
> I was not privy to particulars of conversation you mention, although I
> have seen this sort of entitled attitude often enough in F/LOSS to have
> somewhat of an idea of how it might have played out.
>
> Entitled users becoming demanding of things they expect (for free, no
> less) is not just a drag, it's the cancer that slowly kills F/LOSS
> projects.  As eventually actually valuable contributors (maintainers,
> devs, etc.) have had enough of it, get burnt out and leave the project.
> I have seen it far too many times over the years.

You work on it and get a lot of praise but have almost no tolerance for
negative feedback.  When you get project maintainers complaining about your
attitude "Don't complain, I'm only volunteer. Bye Bye", something is screwed
up.  And now you want to start this all over again.  Bye Bye.


> So I imagine what you witnessed was a sort of natural defense mechanism,
> protecting the overall health of the community and project by having a
> strong reaction to such negative attitudes.
>
> Cheers,
> TRS-80
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 at 4:59 AM
> From: "TRS-80" <trs-80@isnotmyreal.name>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Kyle Meyer" <kyle@kyleam.com>, "Tom Gillespie" <tgbugs@gmail.com>, "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>, "Emacs-orgmode" <emacs-orgmode-bounces+orgmode.trs-80=isnotmyreal.name@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> On 2020-11-29 17:08, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> >
> > Yes, there are problems with the documentation.  I noticed recently
> > that
> > some guy criticised the manual, and so many got super defensive.  You
> > should
> > give him a medal for telling you how things are.
>
> I guess in my mind, complaining about the manual, to a bunch of
> volunteers and fellow users, is probably on the pretty unhelpful end of
> the scale.
>
> Making constructive criticism is then slightly better, at least you are
> not deriding (mostly volunteer) people's work and effort.  Although not
> by much, as this still does not require too much effort.
>
> However submitting a patch with an improvement to the documentation is
> quite valuable.  Pretty much on the opposite end of the scale in fact.
> And thus, only this level of contribution "deserves a medal" as far as I
> am concerned.
>
> I was not privy to particulars of conversation you mention, although I
> have seen this sort of entitled attitude often enough in F/LOSS to have
> somewhat of an idea of how it might have played out.
>
> Entitled users becoming demanding of things they expect (for free, no
> less) is not just a drag, it's the cancer that slowly kills F/LOSS
> projects.  As eventually actually valuable contributors (maintainers,
> devs, etc.) have had enough of it, get burnt out and leave the project.
> I have seen it far too many times over the years.
>
> So I imagine what you witnessed was a sort of natural defense mechanism,
> protecting the overall health of the community and project by having a
> strong reaction to such negative attitudes.

There are problems in Org-Agenda my friend.  And quite some confusion
on what mailing list to use.  Only one mailing list is mentioned, then
people start sending you here and there.  At other times, things are done
in a piecemeal process.  Elisp can be challenging and you will not learning
in school.  There needs to be some intermediate level manual if you want
people to get good enough to help the project.  I am quite sure that some
people do spend a long time testing the code.


> Cheers,
> TRS-80
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Jean Louis]

* TRS-80 <trs-80@isnotmyreal.name> [2020-12-11 08:23]:
> On 2020-11-29 17:08, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:

> > Yes, there are problems with the documentation.  I noticed
> > recently that some guy criticised the manual, and so many got
> > super defensive.  You should give him a medal for telling you how
> > things are.

> I guess in my mind, complaining about the manual, to a bunch of
> volunteers and fellow users, is probably on the pretty unhelpful end
> of the scale.

Please assume good faith while trying not to wrong users.

GNU Kind Communications Guidelines
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 05:32:39AM +0100, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:

[...]

> There are problems in Org-Agenda my friend [...]

I don't know whether it's your intention (I'm assuming it's not),
but your tone comes across as pretty rude.

Cheers
 - t

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

Freak out how much you like but it occurs to me that there is no active
hacking on org-agenda and adding new features.  Or it may be that there
are no new ideas and you are getting upset about it.


> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM
> From: tomas@tuxteam.de
> To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 05:32:39AM +0100, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > There are problems in Org-Agenda my friend [...]
>
> I don't know whether it's your intention (I'm assuming it's not),
> but your tone comes across as pretty rude.
>
> Cheers
>  - t
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Detlef Steuer]

Am Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:47:27 +0100
schrieb daniela-spit@gmx.it:

> Freak out how much you like but it occurs to me that there is no
> active hacking on org-agenda and adding new features.  Or it may be
> that there are no new ideas and you are getting upset about it.

Hmm, may be he just meant, what he very politely said.

Intended or not you come across in quite a rude way.
I share that feeling of Tomas.

All the best
detlef

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

Perhaps I should be a stand up comedian!  You want to enforce some social repercussions
like you did with Richard Stallman?

> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 at 2:59 PM
> From: "Detlef Steuer" <steuer@hsu-hh.de>
> To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> Am Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:47:27 +0100
> schrieb daniela-spit@gmx.it:
>
> > Freak out how much you like but it occurs to me that there is no
> > active hacking on org-agenda and adding new features.  Or it may be
> > that there are no new ideas and you are getting upset about it.
>
> Hmm, may be he just meant, what he very politely said.
>
> Intended or not you come across in quite a rude way.
> I share that feeling of Tomas.
>
> All the best
> detlef
>
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Christopher Dimech]

Stick to the topic.  She encountered an org-agenda problem and she figured out what
was happening by herself.  And I'm sure it was not without any toil.



> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 at 2:59 PM
> From: "Detlef Steuer" <steuer@hsu-hh.de>
> To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> Am Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:47:27 +0100
> schrieb daniela-spit@gmx.it:
>
> > Freak out how much you like but it occurs to me that there is no
> > active hacking on org-agenda and adding new features.  Or it may be
> > that there are no new ideas and you are getting upset about it.
>
> Hmm, may be he just meant, what he very politely said.
>
> Intended or not you come across in quite a rude way.
> I share that feeling of Tomas.
>
> All the best
> detlef
>
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Ihor Radchenko]

> ... there is no active
> hacking on org-agenda and adding new features. 

You are welcome to submit patches.

I have experimental code to use pretty-symbols in agenda and align tags
even when frame size changes [1]. However, last time I proposed this on
mailing list, there was no interest...

[1] https://orgmode.org/list/87r1v71aw0.fsf@localhost/

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 402 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 02:47:27PM +0100, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> 
> Freak out how much you like but it occurs to me that there is no active
> hacking on org-agenda and adding new features.  Or it may be that there
> are no new ideas and you are getting upset about it.

No need to second-guess me. As Detlef wrote in this thread,
I meant what I wrote -- no more, no less.

Cheers
 - t

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 at 3:26 PM
> From: "Ihor Radchenko" <yantar92@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it, tomas@tuxteam.de
> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> > ... there is no active
> > hacking on org-agenda and adding new features.
>
> You are welcome to submit patches.
>
> I have experimental code to use pretty-symbols in agenda and align tags
> even when frame size changes [1]. However, last time I proposed this on
> mailing list, there was no interest...
>
> [1] https://orgmode.org/list/87r1v71aw0.fsf@localhost/

Was your patch welcomed?  Perhaps it is time to bring the topics again.
It could be that there are some criteria for patches to go on the
official version.  I have had times when I made comments and the problem
gets understood quite some time later.  At times it is wise to assume the
person reporting an encountered difficulty is aware of something you ain't.

It is- good to add patches, but at times people report something for the benefit
of everybody, not just themselves.  I should add that I resolved the problem
so have no need to argue how rude I can be.  We all know that there are many
in the community who lack social skills.  I went to one group meeting one time,
and buggered off in less than five minutes.

Regards
Daniela

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

Two countrymen conspiring together.

> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 at 3:43 PM
> From: tomas@tuxteam.de
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 02:47:27PM +0100, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> >
> > Freak out how much you like but it occurs to me that there is no active
> > hacking on org-agenda and adding new features.  Or it may be that there
> > are no new ideas and you are getting upset about it.
>
> No need to second-guess me. As Detlef wrote in this thread,
> I meant what I wrote -- no more, no less.
>
> Cheers
>  - t
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 357 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 03:54:01PM +0100, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> Two countrymen conspiring together.

Calm down. The Germans ain't after you (BTW: I may have a .de
address -- still I am not German. On the Internet, they say,
nobody knows you're a dog [1]).

Cheers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet%2C_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog

 - t

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 at 4:46 PM
> From: tomas@tuxteam.de
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 03:54:01PM +0100, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Two countrymen conspiring together.
>
> Calm down. The Germans ain't after you (BTW: I may have a .de
> address -- still I am not German. On the Internet, they say,
> nobody knows you're a dog [1]).

I'm a little cat really :)

> Cheers
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet%2C_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog
>
>  - t
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Jean Louis]

* Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-12-11 17:24]:
> > ... there is no active
> > hacking on org-agenda and adding new features. 
> 
> You are welcome to submit patches.
> 
> I have experimental code to use pretty-symbols in agenda and align tags
> even when frame size changes [1]. However, last time I proposed this on
> mailing list, there was no interest...
> 
> [1] https://orgmode.org/list/87r1v71aw0.fsf@localhost/

By the way I have completely switched all action management to my
database system with tabulated list mode. No more using Org for action
management, only for document, not even short notes. Access to notes
by relevance search by using PostgreSQL full text search is so much
more logical personally. Computer performs search but as database is
more compact it does not search over all files. Things are easily
reordered rather then refiled. Key bindings for majority of actions
are way shorter as tabulated list mode is not editing mode.

- tasks can be assigned to one among 200,000+ people in the database,
  and I need not take care how their names are written and if I will
  lose a task because I made a type in writing their names. Person is
  rather selected and computer thinks what is their unique ID, not
  name.

- listing tasks assigned to specific person or group of people is
  quick and easy, related to person or group is quick or easy.

- daily list of pending tasks can be sent by email automatically, list
  of completed tasks can be sent. Task as such can be sent with one or
  two keys pressed without me thinking as all related objects are
  integrated (email address of assignee is already known).

- I need not keep one list of assignees in one file, other list in
  other file, etc. I can list all asignees straight with one key or
  see actions assigned to them.

- and I do not write subordinate tasks as TODO any more, that makes no
  sense. There is one senior section on what subject, project or
  objective has to be fullfiled and those subordinate tasks which are
  not marked with TODO repetitevely can be marked as redundant or
  superfluous, purposeless when senior objective have been
  completed. This means they are not done as there is no need to get
  something done if objective have been fullfiled. Org mode have
  imposed reverse on users where for example a list of items is only
  then completed as DONE when subordinate tasks have been completed as
  DONE, which makes users lie to themselves as they will then
  "complete" the task which is not complete because it is purposeless
  only to complete the senior task as DONE.

And I think it is possible for anybody regardless of programming skill
level to make one's own system of management of tasks within less than
a week that will get more aligned to personal individualized way of
handling tasks, then trying to accommodate personal needs to software
that may have gone one completly wrong direction.

Software is there to help the human, not human to help the software.

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 3:35 AM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Ihor Radchenko" <yantar92@gmail.com>
> Cc: daniela-spit@gmx.it, tomas@tuxteam.de, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> * Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-12-11 17:24]:
> > > ... there is no active
> > > hacking on org-agenda and adding new features.
> >
> > You are welcome to submit patches.
> >
> > I have experimental code to use pretty-symbols in agenda and align tags
> > even when frame size changes [1]. However, last time I proposed this on
> > mailing list, there was no interest...
> >
> > [1] https://orgmode.org/list/87r1v71aw0.fsf@localhost/
>
> By the way I have completely switched all action management to my
> database system with tabulated list mode. No more using Org for action
> management, only for document, not even short notes. Access to notes
> by relevance search by using PostgreSQL full text search is so much
> more logical personally. Computer performs search but as database is
> more compact it does not search over all files. Things are easily
> reordered rather then refiled. Key bindings for majority of actions
> are way shorter as tabulated list mode is not editing mode.
>
> - tasks can be assigned to one among 200,000+ people in the database,
>   and I need not take care how their names are written and if I will
>   lose a task because I made a type in writing their names. Person is
>   rather selected and computer thinks what is their unique ID, not
>   name.
>
> - listing tasks assigned to specific person or group of people is
>   quick and easy, related to person or group is quick or easy.
>
> - daily list of pending tasks can be sent by email automatically, list
>   of completed tasks can be sent. Task as such can be sent with one or
>   two keys pressed without me thinking as all related objects are
>   integrated (email address of assignee is already known).
>
> - I need not keep one list of assignees in one file, other list in
>   other file, etc. I can list all asignees straight with one key or
>   see actions assigned to them.
>
> - and I do not write subordinate tasks as TODO any more, that makes no
>   sense. There is one senior section on what subject, project or
>   objective has to be fullfiled and those subordinate tasks which are
>   not marked with TODO repetitevely can be marked as redundant or
>   superfluous, purposeless when senior objective have been
>   completed. This means they are not done as there is no need to get
>   something done if objective have been fullfiled. Org mode have
>   imposed reverse on users where for example a list of items is only
>   then completed as DONE when subordinate tasks have been completed as
>   DONE, which makes users lie to themselves as they will then
>   "complete" the task which is not complete because it is purposeless
>   only to complete the senior task as DONE.
>
> And I think it is possible for anybody regardless of programming skill
> level to make one's own system of management of tasks within less than
> a week that will get more aligned to personal individualized way of
> handling tasks, then trying to accommodate personal needs to software
> that may have gone one completly wrong direction.

If I said that I would be barraged by accusations of rudeness! :)

> Software is there to help the human, not human to help the software.
>
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[TRS-80]

On 2020-12-11 21:35, Jean Louis wrote:
> 
> By the way I have completely switched all action management to my
> database system with tabulated list mode. No more using Org for action
> management, only for document, not even short notes.
> 

It sounds like you have well moved on to another solution by now,
however I did want to point out what I thought was one small factual
inaccuracy.

> 
> Org mode have imposed reverse on users where for example a list of
> items is only then completed as DONE when subordinate tasks have been
> completed as DONE
> 

Unless I am badly mistaken, I think this is only true when
org-enforce-todo-dependencies is non-nil?

Cheers,
TRS-80

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Jean Louis]

* daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-12-12 05:41]:
> > And I think it is possible for anybody regardless of programming skill
> > level to make one's own system of management of tasks within less than
> > a week that will get more aligned to personal individualized way of
> > handling tasks, then trying to accommodate personal needs to software
> > that may have gone one completly wrong direction.
> 
> If I said that I would be barraged by accusations of rudeness! :)

The key is in steganography:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

Org mode is popular within subset of population using it where each
other encourage to use it more regardless of how much tedious efforts
it needs itself just to function how users would like it. Additionally
majority of users use functions of Org mode which they would not need
would they be simple be organized. A person well organized does not
look throug agenda as that means lack of organization. Agenda helps
those which are not organized. Just look at any friend or person who
organizes life without computer and compare to people using Org
mode. Software should replace slow methods with papers and make
planning faster and non-repetitive. Any software shall help human to
speed up actions.

In general Org mode is excellent for personal TODO lists. That is what
is offered in the menu, that is what is advertised. Problem is that
there is no warning for users that personal TODO lists are not meant
for anything but that. There is no collaboration, putting TODO items
eveywhere IS procrastination. Using org-agenda to find procrastination
is another procrastination. Trying to glue everything together is
absence of good planning and not planning.

While reading how people write to mailing list trying to solve
problems they would never solve in the real world with paper I am
getting more and more surprised.

What Org mode needs is at least few Wiki pages where various methods
of planning are presented as that could be useful to help people
minimize their procrastination.

My experience comes from writing plans since more than 25 years. I was
always writing it on paper. Actions are chronologically and logically
ordered. Main objectives are always well defined for which purpose
subordinate actions have to be conducted. If main objectives are
fullfiled those subordinate actions become redundant or superfluous.

From Org info file:

> 5 TODO Items
> ************

> Org mode does not maintain TODO lists as separate documents(1).
> Instead, TODO items are an integral part of the notes file, because TODO
> items usually come up while taking notes!

For personal planning this may be fine for many, but I consider it bad
habbit. If there is an action item then put any information necessary
for that action within the action item. Print it along if
necessary. Handle your thinker notes first once and completely and
include what is necessary in action items.

- person will not read the notes written back in time over and over
  again.

- if notes are not necessary for the action, why put them in front of
  oneself to be read

- horrible situations will take place if those notes which are not
  necessary are put in front of collaborator who is now expected to
  read action item and fulfill the action

> because TODO items usually come up while taking notes!

My action items have been written in project documents executed by
multiple groups of people in multiple countries on distances of 5000+
kilometers away including by people who have never seen me face to
face. I have never put "notes" together with action items.

Whoever wrote that "TODO items usually comes up while taking notes"
was referring to oneself and imposes this habit which I never had onto
others.

In other words the manual imposes specific method of planning without
comparison to other methods of planning. Then users learn that is
right thing to do, ah, let me put everything together.

Since 2016 almost all project planning was written by Org mode as I
find it useful to get LaTeX/PDF output. It is then printed, carried
physically by people on the ground and signed with initialy physically
by hand as DONE with the date and time. There known objectives and
those are targets to be fulfilled.

Any notes arriving back from collaborators are not placed into project
planning. If such would enhance project planning they could become
part of planning for the next project.

But generally the feedback notes do not relate to project planning
itself, they relate to people, organizations, findings on ground, they
are part of the report. It is not necessary to re-write the report
back into any Org file as the plan is separate from reports and
executions. Conclusions which come later could result in some new
plan. But initial plan is not to be mixed with new information, it is
rather kept intact and maybe improved for next time execution.

> With Org mode, simply mark any entry in a tree as being a TODO
> item.  In this way, information is not duplicated, and the entire
> context from which the TODO item emerged is always present.

That is the method I speak about. It is method of lack of planning but
making "any entry in a tree as being a TODO item". That may be good
for personal planning if those TODO lists are not many. As soon as
lists become even little complex it will become opposite of what one
intended to have. Instead of organized lists one get disorganized
lists. TODO is everywhere.

> Of course, this technique for managing TODO items scatters them
> throughout your notes file.  Org mode compensates for this by
> providing methods to give you an overview of all the things that you
> have to do.

The Org manual does admit that the offered method is not a method at
all. It speaks of habits of some disorganized authors who simply did
not knew better. That TODO items are scattered it is not even
considered bad habbit. That it prevents any kind of collaboration is
not considered a bug. That it will ask for millions of compensations
to get the overview of all things one has to do is presented as
something common or normal. It is common only to procrastinators.

My projects in Org mode were not written with TODO tags mostly because
the projects are often duplicated or enhanced for various groups and
persons and are NOT personaly. Duplicated projects would give me
duplicate results if I would be using Org agenda. Which I do not
use. I was looking at it from viewpoint to see what it does, but I
never used. Why should I if I have not scattered my lists of actions
around?

If I have assigned some actions to me personally yesterday, I will
know next day what is to be done. If there are many there will be list
of things. Because list of things is anyway action item there will be
no need to place large "TODO" tag there. Everything is TODO. When
completed check it out. In collaborative execution of projects it has
to be signed by initials and checked out with date and time. We want
things done, and not spend time on computer to satisfy bad design of
software that is not meant to be project planning software. Why should
I be switching TODO items on computer back and forth when completed?
Sounds redundant to me personally. If item is action it is in the list
of actions, there is no need to mark it TODO. I may mark it completed
and never turn it back again as TODO.

Maybe every Org user could improve their execution of tasks in life by
actually printing the tasks, by actually using PDF export and using
papers.

Prepare the list for printing. Your thinking will be different if you
need to print it. Your list will have more sense. Especially try to
prepare the list for other people to understand it. You will minimize
the number of scattered intertwined notes around the action items this
way. Print your list. Execute what is in the list. Compare the time
you spend by using papers. You want your things done, you don't want
marking properties, tags all the time. Get it done. Mark whole project
as DONE in your computer file, archive or discard it.

Then later in some other project try to do it with the Org mode alone
on computer and without printing. Then see how much time you spend in
making "decorations" in your Org file like tags, properties,
etc. Review how many times you changed your schedule, deadline,
etc. In other words observe your own procrastination.

Compare the time you spend by using Org mode directly with the time
you spend by using papers.

Jean

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 6:19 AM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, "Ihor Radchenko" <yantar92@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> * daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-12-12 05:41]:
> > > And I think it is possible for anybody regardless of programming skill
> > > level to make one's own system of management of tasks within less than
> > > a week that will get more aligned to personal individualized way of
> > > handling tasks, then trying to accommodate personal needs to software
> > > that may have gone one completly wrong direction.
> >
> > If I said that I would be barraged by accusations of rudeness! :)
>
> The key is in steganography:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

:)

> Org mode is popular within subset of population using it where each
> other encourage to use it more regardless of how much tedious efforts
> it needs itself just to function how users would like it. Additionally
> majority of users use functions of Org mode which they would not need
> would they be simple be organized. A person well organized does not
> look throug agenda as that means lack of organization. Agenda helps
> those which are not organized. Just look at any friend or person who
> organizes life without computer and compare to people using Org
> mode. Software should replace slow methods with papers and make
> planning faster and non-repetitive. Any software shall help human to
> speed up actions.
>
> In general Org mode is excellent for personal TODO lists. That is what
> is offered in the menu, that is what is advertised. Problem is that
> there is no warning for users that personal TODO lists are not meant
> for anything but that. There is no collaboration, putting TODO items
> eveywhere IS procrastination. Using org-agenda to find procrastination
> is another procrastination. Trying to glue everything together is
> absence of good planning and not planning.

Carsten would disagree with that evaluation.  It is also for organising
professional life - with plain text.  Still, if you are disorganized,
you can use it.  Or perhaps if one is lazy - like myself, many things
I do nat have an interest in but have to oversee at least some parts of
them.

> While reading how people write to mailing list trying to solve
> problems they would never solve in the real world with paper I am
> getting more and more surprised.
>
> What Org mode needs is at least few Wiki pages where various methods
> of planning are presented as that could be useful to help people
> minimize their procrastination.
>
> My experience comes from writing plans since more than 25 years. I was
> always writing it on paper. Actions are chronologically and logically
> ordered. Main objectives are always well defined for which purpose
> subordinate actions have to be conducted. If main objectives are
> fullfiled those subordinate actions become redundant or superfluous.
>
> From Org info file:
>
> > 5 TODO Items
> > ************
>
> > Org mode does not maintain TODO lists as separate documents(1).
> > Instead, TODO items are an integral part of the notes file, because TODO
> > items usually come up while taking notes!
>
> For personal planning this may be fine for many, but I consider it bad
> habbit. If there is an action item then put any information necessary
> for that action within the action item. Print it along if
> necessary. Handle your thinker notes first once and completely and
> include what is necessary in action items.
>
> - person will not read the notes written back in time over and over
>   again.
>
> - if notes are not necessary for the action, why put them in front of
>   oneself to be read
>
> - horrible situations will take place if those notes which are not
>   necessary are put in front of collaborator who is now expected to
>   read action item and fulfill the action
>
> > because TODO items usually come up while taking notes!
>
> My action items have been written in project documents executed by
> multiple groups of people in multiple countries on distances of 5000+
> kilometers away including by people who have never seen me face to
> face. I have never put "notes" together with action items.
>
> Whoever wrote that "TODO items usually comes up while taking notes"
> was referring to oneself and imposes this habit which I never had onto
> others.
>
> In other words the manual imposes specific method of planning without
> comparison to other methods of planning. Then users learn that is
> right thing to do, ah, let me put everything together.
>
> Since 2016 almost all project planning was written by Org mode as I
> find it useful to get LaTeX/PDF output. It is then printed, carried
> physically by people on the ground and signed with initialy physically
> by hand as DONE with the date and time. There known objectives and
> those are targets to be fulfilled.
>
> Any notes arriving back from collaborators are not placed into project
> planning. If such would enhance project planning they could become
> part of planning for the next project.
>
> But generally the feedback notes do not relate to project planning
> itself, they relate to people, organizations, findings on ground, they
> are part of the report. It is not necessary to re-write the report
> back into any Org file as the plan is separate from reports and
> executions. Conclusions which come later could result in some new
> plan. But initial plan is not to be mixed with new information, it is
> rather kept intact and maybe improved for next time execution.
>
> > With Org mode, simply mark any entry in a tree as being a TODO
> > item.  In this way, information is not duplicated, and the entire
> > context from which the TODO item emerged is always present.
>
> That is the method I speak about. It is method of lack of planning but
> making "any entry in a tree as being a TODO item". That may be good
> for personal planning if those TODO lists are not many. As soon as
> lists become even little complex it will become opposite of what one
> intended to have. Instead of organized lists one get disorganized
> lists. TODO is everywhere.
>
> > Of course, this technique for managing TODO items scatters them
> > throughout your notes file.  Org mode compensates for this by
> > providing methods to give you an overview of all the things that you
> > have to do.
>
> The Org manual does admit that the offered method is not a method at
> all. It speaks of habits of some disorganized authors who simply did
> not knew better. That TODO items are scattered it is not even
> considered bad habbit. That it prevents any kind of collaboration is
> not considered a bug. That it will ask for millions of compensations
> to get the overview of all things one has to do is presented as
> something common or normal. It is common only to procrastinators.
>
> My projects in Org mode were not written with TODO tags mostly because
> the projects are often duplicated or enhanced for various groups and
> persons and are NOT personaly. Duplicated projects would give me
> duplicate results if I would be using Org agenda. Which I do not
> use. I was looking at it from viewpoint to see what it does, but I
> never used. Why should I if I have not scattered my lists of actions
> around?
>
> If I have assigned some actions to me personally yesterday, I will
> know next day what is to be done. If there are many there will be list
> of things. Because list of things is anyway action item there will be
> no need to place large "TODO" tag there. Everything is TODO. When
> completed check it out. In collaborative execution of projects it has
> to be signed by initials and checked out with date and time. We want
> things done, and not spend time on computer to satisfy bad design of
> software that is not meant to be project planning software. Why should
> I be switching TODO items on computer back and forth when completed?
> Sounds redundant to me personally. If item is action it is in the list
> of actions, there is no need to mark it TODO. I may mark it completed
> and never turn it back again as TODO.
>
> Maybe every Org user could improve their execution of tasks in life by
> actually printing the tasks, by actually using PDF export and using
> papers.
>
> Prepare the list for printing. Your thinking will be different if you
> need to print it. Your list will have more sense. Especially try to
> prepare the list for other people to understand it. You will minimize
> the number of scattered intertwined notes around the action items this
> way. Print your list. Execute what is in the list. Compare the time
> you spend by using papers. You want your things done, you don't want
> marking properties, tags all the time. Get it done. Mark whole project
> as DONE in your computer file, archive or discard it.
>
> Then later in some other project try to do it with the Org mode alone
> on computer and without printing. Then see how much time you spend in
> making "decorations" in your Org file like tags, properties,
> etc. Review how many times you changed your schedule, deadline,
> etc. In other words observe your own procrastination.
>
> Compare the time you spend by using Org mode directly with the time
> you spend by using papers.

I often include org commands in source code which I can then parse.
For instance, I can use it to determine the cyclomatic complexity of
code, and help in admin tasks.

> Jean
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Jean Louis]

* TRS-80 <lists.trs-80@isnotmyreal.name> [2020-12-13 06:34]:
  :PROPERTIES:
  :CREATED:  [2020-12-13 Sun 11:36]
  :ID:       2e42666a-d04b-4f46-ba90-a923a5e2c50d
  :END:
> On 2020-12-11 21:35, Jean Louis wrote:
> > 
> > By the way I have completely switched all action management to my
> > database system with tabulated list mode. No more using Org for action
> > management, only for document, not even short notes.
> 
> It sounds like you have well moved on to another solution by now,
> however I did want to point out what I thought was one small factual
> inaccuracy.

Org files I have always found useful for project and plan documents
preparation, in particular LaTeX and PDF export. As that way I get
better readability on screen and good printed document.

None of such projects and plans need be marked with TODO as its nature
is that it is action plan, all items are actionable items. We print a
project and execute it. People report on project steps by email. 

There is no need to write TODO anywhere as printed file cannot be
changed easily to DONE, it is redundant marking action list item on
the paper with anything but heavy check mark ✔ with initals and date
and time when it was completed. Using it for printed projects is not
same as using computer. In general it makes more practical sense to
export Org files to paper and focus on what has to be done instead on
focusing on decorating Org properties or tags as it wastes time.

In general I can say that any elementary object has related
action. For example URL or hyperlink can demand ACTION. It is
equivalent to TODO. A hyperlink may have annotation, description or
relations to some pages, people, locations and similar.

A paragraph can be elementary object itself. Set of paragraphs could
be elementary object. A list item could be elementary object. Any
elementary object may be related to person, organization, smaller
group of people or other objects, assignee or group as assigned group
to conduct the action, maybe related to specific opportunity,
business, page in a website revision system, file of any type, tags,
or what is else necessary. Things are related. We cannot deny basic
fundaments of our life. Software must be there to help align relations
in human life and to ease locating related and relevant
objects.

In general I will prevent working for computer in my future. Computer
has to work for me. Those are my personal needs that reflect on the
groups positively, reasonably and practically. My staff does not even
know that there exists something as "TODO" item. The nature of a
document has meaning that projects are to do.

> > Org mode have imposed reverse on users where for example a list of
> > items is only then completed as DONE when subordinate tasks have been
> > completed as DONE
> 
> Unless I am badly mistaken, I think this is only true when
> org-enforce-todo-dependencies is non-nil?

Variable is nil on my side.

- [-] Something
  - [ ] one
  - [ ] two
  - [X] three

I cannot mark Something to be done without marking those subordinate
items. Changing org-enforce-todo-dependencies does not change
anything. User will need to lie to oneself to close those items to
become able to close senior item.

One would also expect that mentioned variables should influence this
type of structured action items, but it does not. It relates only to
headings. Org offers list item based actions with - [ ] but does not
handle such.

** TODO Buy shoes [1/3] [33%]
   :PROPERTIES:
   :CREATED:  [2020-12-13 Sun 11:36]
   :ID:       d488c7e5-941a-4ce6-aec3-e1b20e1acd70
   :END:

- [ ] Visit shop A
- [ ] Visit shop B
- [X] Visit shop C

What is good that this way the senior item can be completed without
completing subordinate items. In my opinion that is more human alike.

If I do turn on the mentioned variable `org-enforce-todo-dependencies'
to TRUE, I can still close the senior objective here. This is good,
but variable does not do expected.

** DONE Senior objective
   CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 11:22]
   :PROPERTIES:
   :CREATED:  [2020-12-13 Sun 11:36]
   :ID:       6f2fba8a-925b-4c99-9d62-5f48d433a8cc
   :END:
*** TODO Subordinate action 1
    :PROPERTIES:
    :CREATED:  [2020-12-13 Sun 11:36]
    :ID:       1c3c2da7-c564-43e0-b274-b8f0065624ec
    :END:
*** TODO Subordinate action 2
    :PROPERTIES:
    :CREATED:  [2020-12-13 Sun 11:36]
    :ID:       9cb275fd-fcbf-441c-b42d-62c82aa3ff56
    :END:
   
Variable mentions:

Its value is t
Original value was nil

  You can customize this variable.

Documentation:
Non-nil means undone TODO entries will block switching the parent to DONE.
Also, if a parent has an :ORDERED: property, switching an entry to DONE will
be blocked if any prior sibling is not yet done.
Finally, if the parent is blocked because of ordered siblings of its own,
the child will also be blocked.

> Non-nil means undone TODO entries will block switching the parent to DONE.

It obviously does not do that what me as user expects. But I am not
asking for solution neither help in solving unsolvable issues around
Org related planning as it leads to further complexities. Those issues
are really solved on my side as I just use it for documents.

These comments are meant for people to design their own maybe better
ways than having scattered lists everywhere.

Jean

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Ihor Radchenko]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> Org files I have always found useful for project and plan documents
> preparation, in particular LaTeX and PDF export. As that way I get
> better readability on screen and good printed document.
>
> None of such projects and plans need be marked with TODO as its nature
> is that it is action plan, all items are actionable items. We print a
> project and execute it. People report on project steps by email. 

I disagree. Or rather it depends on workflow:
In the process of writing a plan or document there is sometimes an urge
to fix small details instead of finishing the first draft and moving to
more fine-grained edits afterwards. One way around this urge is quickly
inserting an inline todo item and continuing to write (another way is
writing on paper, but one would need to spend extra time re-typing the
hand writing later).

If the document text has inline todo items, it could be useful to mark
the top-level headline todo as well, simply to remind about any ideas
postponed during the writing. Such headline cannot be switched to done
if org enforced todo dependencies.

> There is no need to write TODO anywhere as printed file cannot be
> changed easily to DONE, it is redundant marking action list item on
> the paper with anything but heavy check mark ✔ with initals and date
> and time when it was completed. Using it for printed projects is not
> same as using computer. In general it makes more practical sense to
> export Org files to paper and focus on what has to be done instead on
> focusing on decorating Org properties or tags as it wastes time.

Todo keywords don't have to be included into exported version of the
document.

>> Unless I am badly mistaken, I think this is only true when
>> org-enforce-todo-dependencies is non-nil?
>
> Variable is nil on my side.
>
> - [-] Something
>   - [ ] one
>   - [ ] two
>   - [X] three
>
> I cannot mark Something to be done without marking those subordinate
> items. Changing org-enforce-todo-dependencies does not change
> anything. User will need to lie to oneself to close those items to
> become able to close senior item.

I believe it is hard-coded. One may send a feature request to have more
control over this behaviour.

> One would also expect that mentioned variables should influence this
> type of structured action items, but it does not. It relates only to
> headings. Org offers list item based actions with - [ ] but does not
> handle such.
>
> ** TODO Buy shoes [1/3] [33%]
>    :PROPERTIES:
>    :CREATED:  [2020-12-13 Sun 11:36]
>    :ID:       d488c7e5-941a-4ce6-aec3-e1b20e1acd70
>    :END:
>
> - [ ] Visit shop A
> - [ ] Visit shop B
> - [X] Visit shop C

> What is good that this way the senior item can be completed without
> completing subordinate items. In my opinion that is more human alike.

You need org-enforce-todo-checkbox-dependencies to look into check-boxes
when changing headline todo states.


> If I do turn on the mentioned variable `org-enforce-todo-dependencies'
> to TRUE, I can still close the senior objective here. This is good,
> but variable does not do expected.

> ** DONE Senior objective
>    CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 11:22]
>    :PROPERTIES:
>    :CREATED:  [2020-12-13 Sun 11:36]
>    :ID:       6f2fba8a-925b-4c99-9d62-5f48d433a8cc
>    :END:
> *** TODO Subordinate action 1
>     :PROPERTIES:
>     :CREATED:  [2020-12-13 Sun 11:36]
>     :ID:       1c3c2da7-c564-43e0-b274-b8f0065624ec
>     :END:
> *** TODO Subordinate action 2
>     :PROPERTIES:
>     :CREATED:  [2020-12-13 Sun 11:36]
>     :ID:       9cb275fd-fcbf-441c-b42d-62c82aa3ff56
>     :END:
>    
> Variable mentions:
>
> Its value is t
> Original value was nil
>
>   You can customize this variable.
>
> Documentation:
> Non-nil means undone TODO entries will block switching the parent to DONE.
> Also, if a parent has an :ORDERED: property, switching an entry to DONE will
> be blocked if any prior sibling is not yet done.
> Finally, if the parent is blocked because of ordered siblings of its own,
> the child will also be blocked.
>
>> Non-nil means undone TODO entries will block switching the parent to DONE.
>
> It obviously does not do that what me as user expects.

I cannot reproduce what you observe. Also, one can forcefully change
todo state to done even when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is set to
TRUE. To do it, C-u C-u C-u C-c C-t needs to be used instead of C-c C-t
for setting the todo state.

> But I am not
> asking for solution neither help in solving unsolvable issues around
> Org related planning as it leads to further complexities. Those issues
> are really solved on my side as I just use it for documents.

Note that you are also risking to complain about things that are
actually not a problem. Simply because you don't have a need to
investigate what is possible.

> These comments are meant for people to design their own maybe better
> ways than having scattered lists everywhere.
>
> Jean

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Jean Louis]

* daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-12-13 08:52]:
> > In general Org mode is excellent for personal TODO lists. That is what
> > is offered in the menu, that is what is advertised. Problem is that
> > there is no warning for users that personal TODO lists are not meant
> > for anything but that. There is no collaboration, putting TODO items
> > eveywhere IS procrastination. Using org-agenda to find procrastination
> > is another procrastination. Trying to glue everything together is
> > absence of good planning and not planning.
> 
> Carsten would disagree with that evaluation.  It is also for organising
> professional life - with plain text.  Still, if you are disorganized,
> you can use it.  Or perhaps if one is lazy - like myself, many things
> I do nat have an interest in but have to oversee at least some parts of
> them.

Agree or not, it is written in the manual. The paradigm of organizing
life does not inherit from Org. What inherits from Org is the paradigm
to put any actionable items anywhere and compensate for scattered
things by using org-agenda.

Reference to manual:
(info "(org) TODO Items")

And it is definitely not a "plain text". It is probably largest mode
for Emacs, a true and full application handling much more than plain
text. It has more than 129 Emacs Lisp files. Maybe in beginning it was
plain text, not any more now. Now it is a wannabe database.

As I did notice the pattern of compensation for procrastination, and
that I need more and more Emacs Lisp to fullfil basic human real world
needs, then I rather made my own system that is meta level to Org
files. Collaboration becomes possible due to the database being
designed for multiple users. Privileges become possible for same
reason. Automatic version control becomes possible database
backed. Changes can be tracked back to know which user changed
SCHEDULED to DEADLINE or DEADLINE to SCHEDULED or moved SCHEDULED
forward in time or changed DEADLINE not to be DEADLINE any more. Who
assigned which task to which person is easily viewable. People
assigned need to be contacted, list of those people is there with
hyperlinks and functions to send them email, SMS or call them. Org
agenda need not compensate for anything. I can also put scattered
tasks and note as I wish but I don't. My capture templates are over
1100+ subjects among which I probably use actively only 20-50, did not
count it. Emacs Lisp handling that is currently 137 kilobytes. It did
not yet reach 4.7 megabytes as Org distribution. I can convert
everything to Org file when necessary.

Even editing Org file by updating database is possible, but I do not
wish to go back to complexities. My "headings" I call hyperdocuments
which can be just anything. They can be packaged together or released
together with the Org file summarizing them all. They can become Org
file all together. It can be markdown, really plain text, video files,
references of all kinds, also Org files, or just headings of
it. Everything becomes elementary object of one bigger picture
according to Engelbart:

Doug Engelbart Institute - Boosting mankind's capability for coping with complex, urgent problems
https://www.dougengelbart.org/

Draft OHS-Project Plan
https://web.archive.org/web/20070704185333/http://www.bootstrap.org/augdocs/bi-2120.html

TECHNOLOGY TEMPLATE PROJECT OHS Framework 
https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/110/460/

Design of any software would be better by following the Open
Hyperdocument System project plan.

> I often include org commands in source code which I can then parse.
> For instance, I can use it to determine the cyclomatic complexity of
> code, and help in admin tasks.

I have no idea what is cyclomatic. Code definitely get complex. Give
some example how are you putting org commands in source code.

On my side I also use GNU Hyperbole package. In Emacs lisp M-RET on a
function brings me to function definition which is very handy. I can
invoke email on region or buffer text. I can define buttons in any
source code to jump anywhere else. It works in Org as well.

Org hyperlinks can also work in any buffer including in source
codes. I am not sure if that is wanted. Text is definitely not any
more "plain text" as soon as it has Org hyperlink.

GNU Hyperbole type of hyperlinks:

 <(Look up word)>
 <(Find people without assigned groups)>

This is because these hyperlinks are in a separate directory file and
thus separate from the text file where they are located.

Org hyperlinks need to be included in the text and would look like
this:

[[elisp:(look-up-word)][Look up word]]

I do tend to have separate hyperlink meta data from the hyperlink
itself. I would prefer something more generic like

 look up word [3:I49] to expand to hyperlink 3 words backwords or
 [I49:3] 3 words forward when parsing and displaying such a file. Or
 simply [I49] to become hyperlink itself to the node 49.

 If node 49 is WWW hyperlink, let user go there. If it is note, show
 him the note, if it is something else, go there. Jump anywhere
 including to any paragraphs. And that hyperlinks are provided by
 centralized database of all hyperlinks and hyperdocuments.

Jean

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Jean Louis]

* Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-12-13 12:25]:
> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> 
> > Org files I have always found useful for project and plan documents
> > preparation, in particular LaTeX and PDF export. As that way I get
> > better readability on screen and good printed document.
> >
> > None of such projects and plans need be marked with TODO as its nature
> > is that it is action plan, all items are actionable items. We print a
> > project and execute it. People report on project steps by email. 
> 
> I disagree. Or rather it depends on workflow:
> In the process of writing a plan or document there is sometimes an urge
> to fix small details instead of finishing the first draft and moving to
> more fine-grained edits afterwards. One way around this urge is quickly
> inserting an inline todo item and continuing to write (another way is
> writing on paper, but one would need to spend extra time re-typing the
> hand writing later).

Aha yes, in the context of finishing documents some items cannot be
completed and that is where TODO comes handy to know where to come
back to finish the document, while other items get completed in the
same time. But then again I never need an Org mode for that. I write
in LaTeX and plain TeX too, there are programs, so I always leave
there some tags in comments, usually also TODO. But is not Org mode
dependent.

Practically, if I write "TODO" on the heading then something is very
wrong with all heading. I write a tag ;; TODO in Lisp code when I need
to improve specific line of code to something else in future. Anybody
can invent any kind of tags or even just note line numbers at begin or
end of file. Should not be Org related in general.

If my text under heading is large I rather like to bookmark where to
come then to rely on TODO tag on the heading as it will not pinpoint
where exactly I have to continue.

> If the document text has inline todo items, it could be useful to mark
> the top-level headline todo as well, simply to remind about any ideas
> postponed during the writing. Such headline cannot be switched to done
> if org enforced todo dependencies.

Do you mean this:

** DONE Objective
   CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 20:00]
*** TODO [#B] Step to do 1
*** TODO Step to do 2

when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is true I can still say DONE for
Objective above. I have mentioned it today already. Maybe it works on
your side, it does not work here. Do I do something wrong? I am on
development Emacs version and it does not enforce under emacs -Q

Project planning shall always start backwards from known objective to
be achieved. Subordinate tasks should become superfluous or redundant
as soon as objective have been achieved.

Scattered tasks without objective also have its objectives, they are
just not sorted well. Good organizing means to put it under right
objective and work by achieving objectives. City administrations do
like that. Military does like that. Boy scouts do like
that. Humanitarian organization.

> Todo keywords don't have to be included into exported version of the
> document.

Sure. Sometimes is necessary, sometimes not.

> >> Unless I am badly mistaken, I think this is only true when
> >> org-enforce-todo-dependencies is non-nil?
> >
> > Variable is nil on my side.
> >
> > - [-] Something
> >   - [ ] one
> >   - [ ] two
> >   - [X] three
> >
> > I cannot mark Something to be done without marking those subordinate
> > items. Changing org-enforce-todo-dependencies does not change
> > anything. User will need to lie to oneself to close those items to
> > become able to close senior item.
> 
> I believe it is hard-coded. One may send a feature request to have more
> control over this behaviour.

It looks like I am only one observing that. And especially me I do not
like depending on Org mode to dictate how to close items. So when
there is somebody else to join in the notion that is where feature is
appropriate. Otherwise I consider Org rather made and designed for
other way thinkers and doers, not for us who think from senior
objectives as priorities where subordinate items should become
redundant and not marked as "done".

My personal list of for a day has 7 items currently. Not 250. Those
are rather objectives, goals and purposes. Single items under
objectives are well known actions to be done and need not be marked as
TODO, but I can. My focus is on the meaning of what has to be done and
I do not need to look into tags or properties. Your informational
emails gave me to thinking so I have implemented it all.

> > If I do turn on the mentioned variable `org-enforce-todo-dependencies'
> > to TRUE, I can still close the senior objective here. This is good,
> > but variable does not do expected.
> 
> > ** DONE Senior objective
> >    CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 11:22]

> I cannot reproduce what you observe. Also, one can forcefully change
> todo state to done even when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is set to
> TRUE. To do it, C-u C-u C-u C-c C-t needs to be used instead of C-c C-t
> for setting the todo state.

I can observe in emacs -Q from development version.

So you say when you try to close senior heading that you cannot close
it? I can when that variable is true or nil, do you think it is bug?

I can give you access to Emacs over remote ssh and you can try because
if it is bug, it is serious for those other thinkers but me.

For me, closing the objective would mean not to mark subordinate items
as DONE or COMPLETED, rather not to mark them at all as they are
redundant. Project finished. Money earned. Such items may be
duplicated to other projects but in that particular one they become
redundant.

> > But I am not asking for solution neither help in solving
> > unsolvable issues around Org related planning as it leads to
> > further complexities. Those issues are really solved on my side as
> > I just use it for documents.

> Note that you are also risking to complain about things that are
> actually not a problem. Simply because you don't have a need to
> investigate what is possible.

Yes, some of those needs disappeared when I have seen so many
obstacles. I did not use some features like org-agenda because it was
in front of me what I have to do. Things were not scattered like Org
manual advises and I disadvise. It is different paradigm approach and
so for many needs I need not even investigate what is possible. I am
interested in paradigms, approaches, methods but not in general in
gluing things together which are not meant to be together.

You have seen discussion about Org capture screen not being able to
hold many templates. Did not I mention similar obtrusion caused by Org
agenda screen? Both screens are not even made in Org mode. I wonder
why. Making a read only derived mode is definitely more readable and
usable interface and I gave few lines as references. Tom Cross
realized that Org reinvents the wheel within Emacs interface as it
included silly (my remark) Org templates where completion function
could be sufficient enough. Maybe Carsten as author should put
attention on what users are speaking here.

Or maybe Org mode predates completing-read and derived-mode functions
that for historical reasons it cannot display its own menus in its own
mode.

It is our group based long brainstorming session that results in new
software. Criticizing is necessary to view what has to be improved. If
separate software come into existence within Emacs or outside it is
also good. If such software offers collaboration and concurrency
access, it is useful.

I am Org mode user and rather use it in as member or body of
elementary nodes within a larger meta level tree. Just as some
programs use markdown for writing notes I use any mode to write nodes,
not necessarily notes.

Jean

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 2:19 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, "Ihor Radchenko" <yantar92@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> * daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-12-13 08:52]:
> > > In general Org mode is excellent for personal TODO lists. That is what
> > > is offered in the menu, that is what is advertised. Problem is that
> > > there is no warning for users that personal TODO lists are not meant
> > > for anything but that. There is no collaboration, putting TODO items
> > > eveywhere IS procrastination. Using org-agenda to find procrastination
> > > is another procrastination. Trying to glue everything together is
> > > absence of good planning and not planning.
> >
> > Carsten would disagree with that evaluation.  It is also for organising
> > professional life - with plain text.  Still, if you are disorganized,
> > you can use it.  Or perhaps if one is lazy - like myself, many things
> > I do nat have an interest in but have to oversee at least some parts of
> > them.
>
> Agree or not, it is written in the manual. The paradigm of organizing
> life does not inherit from Org. What inherits from Org is the paradigm
> to put any actionable items anywhere and compensate for scattered
> things by using org-agenda.
>
> Reference to manual:
> (info "(org) TODO Items")
>
> And it is definitely not a "plain text". It is probably largest mode
> for Emacs, a true and full application handling much more than plain
> text. It has more than 129 Emacs Lisp files. Maybe in beginning it was
> plain text, not any more now. Now it is a wannabe database.

In a way it is becoming the opposite of what Carsten was trying to do
in the beginning.  And plain text is always portable.

We should not exclude the original intention and use, making it fully
database.

> As I did notice the pattern of compensation for procrastination, and
> that I need more and more Emacs Lisp to fullfil basic human real world
> needs, then I rather made my own system that is meta level to Org
> files. Collaboration becomes possible due to the database being
> designed for multiple users. Privileges become possible for same
> reason. Automatic version control becomes possible database
> backed. Changes can be tracked back to know which user changed
> SCHEDULED to DEADLINE or DEADLINE to SCHEDULED or moved SCHEDULED
> forward in time or changed DEADLINE not to be DEADLINE any more. Who
> assigned which task to which person is easily viewable. People
> assigned need to be contacted, list of those people is there with
> hyperlinks and functions to send them email, SMS or call them. Org
> agenda need not compensate for anything. I can also put scattered
> tasks and note as I wish but I don't. My capture templates are over
> 1100+ subjects among which I probably use actively only 20-50, did not
> count it. Emacs Lisp handling that is currently 137 kilobytes. It did
> not yet reach 4.7 megabytes as Org distribution. I can convert
> everything to Org file when necessary.
>
> Even editing Org file by updating database is possible, but I do not
> wish to go back to complexities. My "headings" I call hyperdocuments
> which can be just anything. They can be packaged together or released
> together with the Org file summarizing them all. They can become Org
> file all together. It can be markdown, really plain text, video files,
> references of all kinds, also Org files, or just headings of
> it. Everything becomes elementary object of one bigger picture
> according to Engelbart:
>
> Doug Engelbart Institute - Boosting mankind's capability for coping with complex, urgent problems
> https://www.dougengelbart.org/
>
> Draft OHS-Project Plan
> https://web.archive.org/web/20070704185333/http://www.bootstrap.org/augdocs/bi-2120.html
>
> TECHNOLOGY TEMPLATE PROJECT OHS Framework
> https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/110/460/
>
> Design of any software would be better by following the Open
> Hyperdocument System project plan.
>
> > I often include org commands in source code which I can then parse.
> > For instance, I can use it to determine the cyclomatic complexity of
> > code, and help in admin tasks.
>
> I have no idea what is cyclomatic. Code definitely get complex. Give
> some example how are you putting org commands in source code.
>
> On my side I also use GNU Hyperbole package. In Emacs lisp M-RET on a
> function brings me to function definition which is very handy. I can
> invoke email on region or buffer text. I can define buttons in any
> source code to jump anywhere else. It works in Org as well.
>
> Org hyperlinks can also work in any buffer including in source
> codes. I am not sure if that is wanted. Text is definitely not any
> more "plain text" as soon as it has Org hyperlink.
>
> GNU Hyperbole type of hyperlinks:
>
>  <(Look up word)>
>  <(Find people without assigned groups)>
>
> This is because these hyperlinks are in a separate directory file and
> thus separate from the text file where they are located.
>
> Org hyperlinks need to be included in the text and would look like
> this:
>
> [[elisp:(look-up-word)][Look up word]]
>
> I do tend to have separate hyperlink meta data from the hyperlink
> itself. I would prefer something more generic like
>
>  look up word [3:I49] to expand to hyperlink 3 words backwords or
>  [I49:3] 3 words forward when parsing and displaying such a file. Or
>  simply [I49] to become hyperlink itself to the node 49.
>
>  If node 49 is WWW hyperlink, let user go there. If it is note, show
>  him the note, if it is something else, go there. Jump anywhere
>  including to any paragraphs. And that hyperlinks are provided by
>  centralized database of all hyperlinks and hyperdocuments.
>
> Jean
>
>
>
>

---------------------
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 6:31 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Ihor Radchenko" <yantar92@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> * Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-12-13 12:25]:
> > Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> >
> > > Org files I have always found useful for project and plan documents
> > > preparation, in particular LaTeX and PDF export. As that way I get
> > > better readability on screen and good printed document.
> > >
> > > None of such projects and plans need be marked with TODO as its nature
> > > is that it is action plan, all items are actionable items. We print a
> > > project and execute it. People report on project steps by email.
> >
> > I disagree. Or rather it depends on workflow:
> > In the process of writing a plan or document there is sometimes an urge
> > to fix small details instead of finishing the first draft and moving to
> > more fine-grained edits afterwards. One way around this urge is quickly
> > inserting an inline todo item and continuing to write (another way is
> > writing on paper, but one would need to spend extra time re-typing the
> > hand writing later).
>
> Aha yes, in the context of finishing documents some items cannot be
> completed and that is where TODO comes handy to know where to come
> back to finish the document, while other items get completed in the
> same time. But then again I never need an Org mode for that. I write
> in LaTeX and plain TeX too, there are programs, so I always leave
> there some tags in comments, usually also TODO. But is not Org mode
> dependent.
>
> Practically, if I write "TODO" on the heading then something is very
> wrong with all heading. I write a tag ;; TODO in Lisp code when I need
> to improve specific line of code to something else in future. Anybody
> can invent any kind of tags or even just note line numbers at begin or
> end of file. Should not be Org related in general.
>
> If my text under heading is large I rather like to bookmark where to
> come then to rely on TODO tag on the heading as it will not pinpoint
> where exactly I have to continue.
>
> > If the document text has inline todo items, it could be useful to mark
> > the top-level headline todo as well, simply to remind about any ideas
> > postponed during the writing. Such headline cannot be switched to done
> > if org enforced todo dependencies.
>
> Do you mean this:
>
> ** DONE Objective
>    CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 20:00]
> *** TODO [#B] Step to do 1
> *** TODO Step to do 2
>
> when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is true I can still say DONE for
> Objective above. I have mentioned it today already. Maybe it works on
> your side, it does not work here. Do I do something wrong? I am on
> development Emacs version and it does not enforce under emacs -Q
>
> Project planning shall always start backwards from known objective to
> be achieved. Subordinate tasks should become superfluous or redundant
> as soon as objective have been achieved.
>
> Scattered tasks without objective also have its objectives, they are
> just not sorted well. Good organizing means to put it under right
> objective and work by achieving objectives. City administrations do
> like that. Military does like that. Boy scouts do like
> that. Humanitarian organization.
>
> > Todo keywords don't have to be included into exported version of the
> > document.
>
> Sure. Sometimes is necessary, sometimes not.
>
> > >> Unless I am badly mistaken, I think this is only true when
> > >> org-enforce-todo-dependencies is non-nil?
> > >
> > > Variable is nil on my side.
> > >
> > > - [-] Something
> > >   - [ ] one
> > >   - [ ] two
> > >   - [X] three
> > >
> > > I cannot mark Something to be done without marking those subordinate
> > > items. Changing org-enforce-todo-dependencies does not change
> > > anything. User will need to lie to oneself to close those items to
> > > become able to close senior item.
> >
> > I believe it is hard-coded. One may send a feature request to have more
> > control over this behaviour.
>
> It looks like I am only one observing that. And especially me I do not
> like depending on Org mode to dictate how to close items. So when
> there is somebody else to join in the notion that is where feature is
> appropriate. Otherwise I consider Org rather made and designed for
> other way thinkers and doers, not for us who think from senior
> objectives as priorities where subordinate items should become
> redundant and not marked as "done".
>
> My personal list of for a day has 7 items currently. Not 250. Those
> are rather objectives, goals and purposes. Single items under
> objectives are well known actions to be done and need not be marked as
> TODO, but I can. My focus is on the meaning of what has to be done and
> I do not need to look into tags or properties. Your informational
> emails gave me to thinking so I have implemented it all.
>
> > > If I do turn on the mentioned variable `org-enforce-todo-dependencies'
> > > to TRUE, I can still close the senior objective here. This is good,
> > > but variable does not do expected.
> >
> > > ** DONE Senior objective
> > >    CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 11:22]
>
> > I cannot reproduce what you observe. Also, one can forcefully change
> > todo state to done even when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is set to
> > TRUE. To do it, C-u C-u C-u C-c C-t needs to be used instead of C-c C-t
> > for setting the todo state.
>
> I can observe in emacs -Q from development version.
>
> So you say when you try to close senior heading that you cannot close
> it? I can when that variable is true or nil, do you think it is bug?
>
> I can give you access to Emacs over remote ssh and you can try because
> if it is bug, it is serious for those other thinkers but me.
>
> For me, closing the objective would mean not to mark subordinate items
> as DONE or COMPLETED, rather not to mark them at all as they are
> redundant. Project finished. Money earned. Such items may be
> duplicated to other projects but in that particular one they become
> redundant.
>
> > > But I am not asking for solution neither help in solving
> > > unsolvable issues around Org related planning as it leads to
> > > further complexities. Those issues are really solved on my side as
> > > I just use it for documents.
>
> > Note that you are also risking to complain about things that are
> > actually not a problem. Simply because you don't have a need to
> > investigate what is possible.
>
> Yes, some of those needs disappeared when I have seen so many
> obstacles. I did not use some features like org-agenda because it was
> in front of me what I have to do. Things were not scattered like Org
> manual advises and I disadvise. It is different paradigm approach and
> so for many needs I need not even investigate what is possible. I am
> interested in paradigms, approaches, methods but not in general in
> gluing things together which are not meant to be together.
>
> You have seen discussion about Org capture screen not being able to
> hold many templates. Did not I mention similar obtrusion caused by Org
> agenda screen? Both screens are not even made in Org mode. I wonder
> why. Making a read only derived mode is definitely more readable and
> usable interface and I gave few lines as references. Tom Cross
> realized that Org reinvents the wheel within Emacs interface as it
> included silly (my remark) Org templates where completion function
> could be sufficient enough. Maybe Carsten as author should put
> attention on what users are speaking here.

Fully agree

> Or maybe Org mode predates completing-read and derived-mode functions
> that for historical reasons it cannot display its own menus in its own
> mode.
>
> It is our group based long brainstorming session that results in new
> software. Criticizing is necessary to view what has to be improved. If
> separate software come into existence within Emacs or outside it is
> also good. If such software offers collaboration and concurrency
> access, it is useful.
>
> I am Org mode user and rather use it in as member or body of
> elementary nodes within a larger meta level tree. Just as some
> programs use markdown for writing notes I use any mode to write nodes,
> not necessarily notes.
>
> Jean
>
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 6:31 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Ihor Radchenko" <yantar92@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options
>
> * Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-12-13 12:25]:
> > Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> >
> > > Org files I have always found useful for project and plan documents
> > > preparation, in particular LaTeX and PDF export. As that way I get
> > > better readability on screen and good printed document.
> > >
> > > None of such projects and plans need be marked with TODO as its nature
> > > is that it is action plan, all items are actionable items. We print a
> > > project and execute it. People report on project steps by email.
> >
> > I disagree. Or rather it depends on workflow:
> > In the process of writing a plan or document there is sometimes an urge
> > to fix small details instead of finishing the first draft and moving to
> > more fine-grained edits afterwards. One way around this urge is quickly
> > inserting an inline todo item and continuing to write (another way is
> > writing on paper, but one would need to spend extra time re-typing the
> > hand writing later).
>
> Aha yes, in the context of finishing documents some items cannot be
> completed and that is where TODO comes handy to know where to come
> back to finish the document, while other items get completed in the
> same time. But then again I never need an Org mode for that. I write
> in LaTeX and plain TeX too, there are programs, so I always leave
> there some tags in comments, usually also TODO. But is not Org mode
> dependent.

It becomes important for professional writers in the context of finishing
articles and books.

> Practically, if I write "TODO" on the heading then something is very
> wrong with all heading. I write a tag ;; TODO in Lisp code when I need
> to improve specific line of code to something else in future. Anybody
> can invent any kind of tags or even just note line numbers at begin or
> end of file. Should not be Org related in general.
>
> If my text under heading is large I rather like to bookmark where to
> come then to rely on TODO tag on the heading as it will not pinpoint
> where exactly I have to continue.
>
> > If the document text has inline todo items, it could be useful to mark
> > the top-level headline todo as well, simply to remind about any ideas
> > postponed during the writing. Such headline cannot be switched to done
> > if org enforced todo dependencies.
>
> Do you mean this:
>
> ** DONE Objective
>    CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 20:00]
> *** TODO [#B] Step to do 1
> *** TODO Step to do 2
>
> when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is true I can still say DONE for
> Objective above. I have mentioned it today already. Maybe it works on
> your side, it does not work here. Do I do something wrong? I am on
> development Emacs version and it does not enforce under emacs -Q
>
> Project planning shall always start backwards from known objective to
> be achieved. Subordinate tasks should become superfluous or redundant
> as soon as objective have been achieved.
>
> Scattered tasks without objective also have its objectives, they are
> just not sorted well. Good organizing means to put it under right
> objective and work by achieving objectives. City administrations do
> like that. Military does like that. Boy scouts do like
> that. Humanitarian organization.
>
> > Todo keywords don't have to be included into exported version of the
> > document.
>
> Sure. Sometimes is necessary, sometimes not.
>
> > >> Unless I am badly mistaken, I think this is only true when
> > >> org-enforce-todo-dependencies is non-nil?
> > >
> > > Variable is nil on my side.
> > >
> > > - [-] Something
> > >   - [ ] one
> > >   - [ ] two
> > >   - [X] three
> > >
> > > I cannot mark Something to be done without marking those subordinate
> > > items. Changing org-enforce-todo-dependencies does not change
> > > anything. User will need to lie to oneself to close those items to
> > > become able to close senior item.
> >
> > I believe it is hard-coded. One may send a feature request to have more
> > control over this behaviour.
>
> It looks like I am only one observing that. And especially me I do not
> like depending on Org mode to dictate how to close items. So when
> there is somebody else to join in the notion that is where feature is
> appropriate. Otherwise I consider Org rather made and designed for
> other way thinkers and doers, not for us who think from senior
> objectives as priorities where subordinate items should become
> redundant and not marked as "done".
>
> My personal list of for a day has 7 items currently. Not 250. Those
> are rather objectives, goals and purposes. Single items under
> objectives are well known actions to be done and need not be marked as
> TODO, but I can. My focus is on the meaning of what has to be done and
> I do not need to look into tags or properties. Your informational
> emails gave me to thinking so I have implemented it all.
>
> > > If I do turn on the mentioned variable `org-enforce-todo-dependencies'
> > > to TRUE, I can still close the senior objective here. This is good,
> > > but variable does not do expected.
> >
> > > ** DONE Senior objective
> > >    CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 11:22]
>
> > I cannot reproduce what you observe. Also, one can forcefully change
> > todo state to done even when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is set to
> > TRUE. To do it, C-u C-u C-u C-c C-t needs to be used instead of C-c C-t
> > for setting the todo state.
>
> I can observe in emacs -Q from development version.
>
> So you say when you try to close senior heading that you cannot close
> it? I can when that variable is true or nil, do you think it is bug?
>
> I can give you access to Emacs over remote ssh and you can try because
> if it is bug, it is serious for those other thinkers but me.
>
> For me, closing the objective would mean not to mark subordinate items
> as DONE or COMPLETED, rather not to mark them at all as they are
> redundant. Project finished. Money earned. Such items may be
> duplicated to other projects but in that particular one they become
> redundant.
>
> > > But I am not asking for solution neither help in solving
> > > unsolvable issues around Org related planning as it leads to
> > > further complexities. Those issues are really solved on my side as
> > > I just use it for documents.
>
> > Note that you are also risking to complain about things that are
> > actually not a problem. Simply because you don't have a need to
> > investigate what is possible.
>
> Yes, some of those needs disappeared when I have seen so many
> obstacles. I did not use some features like org-agenda because it was
> in front of me what I have to do. Things were not scattered like Org
> manual advises and I disadvise. It is different paradigm approach and
> so for many needs I need not even investigate what is possible. I am
> interested in paradigms, approaches, methods but not in general in
> gluing things together which are not meant to be together.
>
> You have seen discussion about Org capture screen not being able to
> hold many templates. Did not I mention similar obtrusion caused by Org
> agenda screen? Both screens are not even made in Org mode. I wonder
> why. Making a read only derived mode is definitely more readable and
> usable interface and I gave few lines as references. Tom Cross
> realized that Org reinvents the wheel within Emacs interface as it
> included silly (my remark) Org templates where completion function
> could be sufficient enough. Maybe Carsten as author should put
> attention on what users are speaking here.
>
> Or maybe Org mode predates completing-read and derived-mode functions
> that for historical reasons it cannot display its own menus in its own
> mode.
>
> It is our group based long brainstorming session that results in new
> software. Criticizing is necessary to view what has to be improved. If
> separate software come into existence within Emacs or outside it is
> also good. If such software offers collaboration and concurrency
> access, it is useful.
>
> I am Org mode user and rather use it in as member or body of
> elementary nodes within a larger meta level tree. Just as some
> programs use markdown for writing notes I use any mode to write nodes,
> not necessarily notes.
>
> Jean
>
>

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2020-12-13 20:49]:
> > Reference to manual:
> > (info "(org) TODO Items")
> >
> > And it is definitely not a "plain text". It is probably largest mode
> > for Emacs, a true and full application handling much more than plain
> > text. It has more than 129 Emacs Lisp files. Maybe in beginning it was
> > plain text, not any more now. Now it is a wannabe database.
> 
> In a way it is becoming the opposite of what Carsten was trying to do
> in the beginning.  And plain text is always portable.
> 
> We should not exclude the original intention and use, making it fully
> database.

It is already text type of a database with structured data built into
properties and tags, headings, body of headings, etc. Just that it is
scattered database of things that do not have well defined its own
place.

As I see it, one could keep Org file in the database and edit it on
the file system and that it all gets updated to the database. That way
it would become collaborative Org mode. It is easier than one can
imagine.

I was using simple function to update Org TODO tasks to database.

(defun hyperscope-capture-org-heading ()
  "Captures Org heading and stores it in the Hyperscope dynamic
  knowledge repository"
  (interactive)
  (let* ((body (org-copy-subtree nil nil nil t))
	 (body (pop kill-ring))
	 (body (org-no-properties body))
	 (heading (org-get-heading))
	 (created (org-property-values "CREATED"))
	 (date (if created (substring (car created) 1 11) nil))
	 (body (with-temp-buffer
		 (insert body)
		 (org-mode)
		 (org-back-to-heading)
		 (kill-line)
		 (delete-matching-lines ":PROPERTIES:")
		 (delete-matching-lines ":CREATED:")
		 (delete-matching-lines ":ID:")
		 (delete-matching-lines ":END:")
		 (buffer-string))))
    (hyperscope-add-note-to-set-1 heading body date)))

(defun hyperscope-capture-org-heading-as-note-for-person ()
  "Captures Org heading for a person and stores it in the
  Hyperscope dynamic knowledge repository"
  (interactive)
  (let* ((body (org-copy-subtree nil nil nil t))
	 (body (pop kill-ring))
	 (body (org-no-properties body))
	 (heading (org-get-heading))
	 (created (org-property-values "CREATED"))
	 (date (if created (substring (car created) 1 11) nil))
	 (body (with-temp-buffer
		 (insert body)
		 (org-mode)
		 (org-back-to-heading)
		 (kill-line)
		 (delete-matching-lines ":PROPERTIES:")
		 (delete-matching-lines ":CREATED:")
		 (delete-matching-lines ":ID:")
		 (delete-matching-lines ":END:")
		 (buffer-string)))
	 (contact (cf-search-id (read-from-minibuffer "Contact: " nil nil nil 'cf-search-history))))
    (hyperscope-add-note-to-set-1 heading body date)))

Similar functions could be used to to simply update the record in the
database. And all meta data of Org properties, tags, etc, all that
could be inserted into database.

Jean

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Ihor Radchenko]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> Do you mean this:
>
> ** DONE Objective
>    CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 20:00]
> *** TODO [#B] Step to do 1
> *** TODO Step to do 2
>
> when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is true I can still say DONE for
> Objective above. I have mentioned it today already. Maybe it works on
> your side, it does not work here. Do I do something wrong? I am on
> development Emacs version and it does not enforce under emacs -Q

>> I cannot reproduce what you observe. Also, one can forcefully change
>> todo state to done even when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is set to
>> TRUE. To do it, C-u C-u C-u C-c C-t needs to be used instead of C-c C-t
>> for setting the todo state.
>
> I can observe in emacs -Q from development version.
>
> So you say when you try to close senior heading that you cannot close
> it? I can when that variable is true or nil, do you think it is bug?
>
> I can give you access to Emacs over remote ssh and you can try because
> if it is bug, it is serious for those other thinkers but me.

I just looked into this more. Most likely you were trying to set this
variable manually. To take effect, this variable should be set using
customisation interface, before loading org, or you may need to run M-x
org-reload.

> It looks like I am only one observing that. And especially me I do not
> like depending on Org mode to dictate how to close items. So when
> there is somebody else to join in the notion that is where feature is
> appropriate. Otherwise I consider Org rather made and designed for
> other way thinkers and doers, not for us who think from senior
> objectives as priorities where subordinate items should become
> redundant and not marked as "done".

org-mode is developed mostly be enthusiasts. Some popular features are
used by many different people using different workflows. Those features
get a lot of attention and become quite customisable. Other features,
are only used by their author and maybe a few other people who agree on
the way the feature is implemented. Naturally, these less commonly used
features are more biased towards their author's workflows. However, I
don't see why a patch improving org-mode flexibility would not be
welcome. 

> My personal list of for a day has 7 items currently. Not 250. Those
> are rather objectives, goals and purposes. Single items under
> objectives are well known actions to be done and need not be marked as
> TODO, but I can. My focus is on the meaning of what has to be done and
> I do not need to look into tags or properties. Your informational
> emails gave me to thinking so I have implemented it all.

I also find it helpful to combine the objective + a note about concrete
action to take on the objective. The concrete action helps to get
started on the objective without drowning myself into thinking (but not
doing) about all the things I need to do on that objective.

>> Note that you are also risking to complain about things that are
>> actually not a problem. Simply because you don't have a need to
>> investigate what is possible.
>
> Yes, some of those needs disappeared when I have seen so many
> obstacles. I did not use some features like org-agenda because it was
> in front of me what I have to do. Things were not scattered like Org
> manual advises and I disadvise. It is different paradigm approach and
> so for many needs I need not even investigate what is possible. I am
> interested in paradigms, approaches, methods but not in general in
> gluing things together which are not meant to be together.

Would you mind writing a paragraph or two to improve the "5 TODO Items"
section of the manual? At least, we can inform people that the ability
to scatter todo items all around the documents does not mean that it has
to be done.

> Jean

Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Jean Louis]

* Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-12-14 15:46]:
> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> > Do you mean this:
> >
> > ** DONE Objective
> >    CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 20:00]
> > *** TODO [#B] Step to do 1
> > *** TODO Step to do 2
> >
> > when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is true I can still say DONE for
> > Objective above. I have mentioned it today already. Maybe it works on
> > your side, it does not work here. Do I do something wrong? I am on
> > development Emacs version and it does not enforce under emacs -Q
...
> I just looked into this more. Most likely you were trying to set this
> variable manually. To take effect, this variable should be set using
> customisation interface, before loading org, or you may need to run M-x
> org-reload.

That was it! Thank you.

> I also find it helpful to combine the objective + a note about concrete
> action to take on the objective. The concrete action helps to get
> started on the objective without drowning myself into thinking (but not
> doing) about all the things I need to do on that objective.

Objectives here on my side also have their description which is meant
more as communication, information and instruction to people doing
it. Other notes that are maybe useful for management, thinkering, that
would rather obstruct execution of single step are not written in
those headings meant for execution.

> Would you mind writing a paragraph or two to improve the "5 TODO Items"
> section of the manual? At least, we can inform people that the ability
> to scatter todo items all around the documents does not mean that it has
> to be done.

That would be nice. But me writing it for many would not be. It is
better to define list of various paradigms of planning by group of
people who are here on mailing list. Then such paradigms may be
mentioned or referenced collaboratively.

While this type of planning correlate to me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management#Planning

it may not correlate to many other people. So various types of
planning should be presented in the manual.

1. Scattered method, putting notes, tasks in many various places and
   compensating for it with org-agenda

2. Project management as given on Wikipedia could then advise for this
   model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model#Model and
   describe such in short with reference to WWW hyperlink and advising
   Org users to define the objectives and next steps to be followed
   only if previous steps have been accomplished. It is natural to
   write notes related to action step together. But to avoid placing
   notes or action steps from different scope in one file. When one
   headline TODO have been accomplished then it is followed by next
   TODO headline. This way the steps are chronologically ordered.

   What do you think of that?

3. Project planning template could be included as laid out here:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management#Planning
   but in simpler way with the example Org template for some practical
   product such as "bread" in bakery or "software project".

What do you think?

Jean