Small bug and sorting suggestion

Small bug and sorting suggestion

[Bastien]

Hi Carsten and list,

headlines containing a time interval after SCHEDULED are not "closed"
properly (org-log-done is t).  The adding of "CLOSED" yields this:

* WAITING Salon Educ@tice
  SCHEDULED: <2006-11-15 mer>--<2006-11-17 ven>

* DONE Salon Educ@tice
  --<2006-11-17 ven> CLOSED: [2006-11-18 sam]

Maybe i shouldn't use time interval after SCHEDULED, but i find it
useful.  Note that this does not happen with DEADLINE instead of
SCHEDULED.  Tested with org v4.56.

...

The feature suggestion is this one: since you're working on sorting,
what about sorting headlines depending on the date they're attached
to?  

I've got a headline called "Call for paper" where I put all the CFP
and that would be great to have them automagically sorted.

This could be either an absolute order (first coming headline first
displayed, no matter if it's SCHEDULED or DEADLINE) or a mix between
categories and dates (DEADLINE first with sorted items, then SCHEDULED
with sorted items, etc).

Thanks, best regards,

-- 
Bastien

Re: Small bug and sorting suggestion

[Carsten Dominik]

On Nov 19, 2006, at 2:14, Bastien wrote:

> Hi Carsten and list,
>
> headlines containing a time interval after SCHEDULED are not "closed"
> properly (org-log-done is t).  The adding of "CLOSED" yields this:
>
> * WAITING Salon Educ@tice
>   SCHEDULED: <2006-11-15 mer>--<2006-11-17 ven>
>
> * DONE Salon Educ@tice
>   --<2006-11-17 ven> CLOSED: [2006-11-18 sam]
>
> Maybe i shouldn't use time interval after SCHEDULED, but i find it
> useful.  Note that this does not happen with DEADLINE instead of
> SCHEDULED.  Tested with org v4.56.

Indeed, SCHEDULED is not intended to be used with a time interval.
The time/date interval you give in such a case will not be interpreted
as a scheduling interval, but just as a block appointment.

I can see, however, that it could make sense to use it like this.  An
item marked by SCHEDULED: <date1>--<date2> will show up on all days
in the interval, but will also be carried forward as an overdue
scheduled item, until you mark it done.  Hmmm, a nice, unintended
feature.  For now I am leaving it undocumented, but I have fixed
the problem you describe above, for the next version.  Thanks for
the report.

> The feature suggestion is this one: since you're working on sorting,
> what about sorting headlines depending on the date they're attached
> to?
>
> I've got a headline called "Call for paper" where I put all the CFP
> and that would be great to have them automagically sorted.

I take it that you are talking about sorting tree-nodes in the
Org-mode buffer, similar to Carles Cave's request?

> This could be either an absolute order (first coming headline first
> displayed, no matter if it's SCHEDULED or DEADLINE) or a mix between
> categories and dates (DEADLINE first with sorted items, then SCHEDULED
> with sorted items, etc).

Hmmm again - if I read this, it looks to me that you are in fact
talking about sorting in the agenda buffer.  Which one is it?

- Carsten

Re: Small bug and sorting suggestion

[Bastien]

Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:

>> The feature suggestion is this one: since you're working on sorting,
>> what about sorting headlines depending on the date they're attached
>> to?
>>
>> I've got a headline called "Call for paper" where I put all the CFP
>> and that would be great to have them automagically sorted.
>
> I take it that you are talking about sorting tree-nodes in the
> Org-mode buffer, similar to Carles Cave's request?

Yes, that's right.

>> This could be either an absolute order (first coming headline first
>> displayed, no matter if it's SCHEDULED or DEADLINE) or a mix between
>> categories and dates (DEADLINE first with sorted items, then SCHEDULED
>> with sorted items, etc).
>
> Hmmm again - if I read this, it looks to me that you are in fact
> talking about sorting in the agenda buffer.  Which one is it?

It is the org-mode buffer.  We would have something like this:

(Sorted by dates only:)

,----
| * item 1
|   SCHEDULED: <2006-11-20 lun>
|   
| * item 2
|   DEADLINE: <2006-11-21 lun>
| 
| * item 3
|   SCHEDULED: <2006-11-22 lun>
| 
| * item 4
|   DEADLINE: <2006-11-23 lun>
`----

(Sorted by dates and [implicit?] priority - i.e. DEADLINE first,
SCHEDULED second:)

,----
| * item 2
|   DEADLINE: <2006-11-21 lun>
| 
| * item 4
|   DEADLINE: <2006-11-23 lun>
| 
| * item 1
|   SCHEDULED: <2006-11-20 lun>
|   
| * item 3
|   SCHEDULED: <2006-11-22 lun>
`----

I guess you will find some neat way to chose between the row
chronological order and the mixed chronological/priority order.

Regards,

-- 
Bastien

Re: Small bug and sorting suggestion

[Carsten Dominik]

On Nov 20, 2006, at 10:43, Bastien wrote:
>
> It is the org-mode buffer.  We would have something like this:

OK, I was confused by your use of the word "category" which has a 
specific meaning in Org-mode.  You meant the difference between date, 
scheduled and deadline.

I will think about this.

- Carsten

>
> (Sorted by dates only:)
>
> ,----
> | * item 1
> |   SCHEDULED: <2006-11-20 lun>
> |
> | * item 2
> |   DEADLINE: <2006-11-21 lun>
> |
> | * item 3
> |   SCHEDULED: <2006-11-22 lun>
> |
> | * item 4
> |   DEADLINE: <2006-11-23 lun>
> `----
>
> (Sorted by dates and [implicit?] priority - i.e. DEADLINE first,
> SCHEDULED second:)
>
> ,----
> | * item 2
> |   DEADLINE: <2006-11-21 lun>
> |
> | * item 4
> |   DEADLINE: <2006-11-23 lun>
> |
> | * item 1
> |   SCHEDULED: <2006-11-20 lun>
> |
> | * item 3
> |   SCHEDULED: <2006-11-22 lun>
> `----
>
> I guess you will find some neat way to chose between the row
> chronological order and the mixed chronological/priority order.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- 
> Bastien
>
>