relative scheduling

relative scheduling

[Richard G Riley]

Should something +3d work when rescheduling a task? It would be nice if
it did and be a little more consistent IMO.

Re: relative scheduling

[Carsten Dominik]

On Oct 4, 2007, at 14:32, Richard G Riley wrote:

>
> Should something +3d work when rescheduling a task? It would be nice if
> it did and be a little more consistent IMO.

Yes, it would be more consistent so I will do this.

However, a different question pops up here.  When rescheduling,
should the +Nd be relative to today, or relative to
the currently scheduled date?

- A good reason to make it relative to today is that you might not
   always know that the entry is already scheduled.  Using today
   as reference would be safe

- A good reason for doing it relative to the scheduled date is
   that you are *re*-scheduling, and then it is a bit more
   logical to think "lets push this two days down"

Votes?

- Carsten

Re: relative scheduling

[John Rakestraw]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 705 bytes --]


> However, a different question pops up here.  When rescheduling,
> should the +Nd be relative to today, or relative to
> the currently scheduled date?

Perhaps this is personal preference, but somehow it seems more
reasonable to me to reschedule from today. This not only avoids
problems if (I don't know that) an event is already scheduled, but it
also fits in better with my thinking about tasks. Even if it's Monday
and I'm thinking about rescheduling a task that's now scheduled for
Wednesday, I'm still inclined to think about the new date relative to
today rather than relative to Wednesday.

So, even if it's merely my personal preference, that's my vote ;).

-- 
John Rakestraw

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: relative scheduling

[Bastien]

John Rakestraw <lists@johnrakestraw.com> writes:

> Perhaps this is personal preference, but somehow it seems more
> reasonable to me to reschedule from today. This not only avoids
> problems if (I don't know that) an event is already scheduled, but it
> also fits in better with my thinking about tasks. Even if it's Monday
> and I'm thinking about rescheduling a task that's now scheduled for
> Wednesday, I'm still inclined to think about the new date relative to
> today rather than relative to Wednesday.
>
> So, even if it's merely my personal preference, that's my vote ;).

Since we're voting, I hope I'll cause no damage to any further agreement
by voting for the *other* solution :)

Most of the time, I'm rescheduling when:

1. the date of the event moved; in this case, it easier to reschedule
   relatively to the initial date.

2. the date is *today* and I want to delay the task: in this case, there
   is no difference between the two solution :)

Okay, you might ponder my vote like this: (* vote .75) 

-- 
Bastien

Re: relative scheduling

[Rainer Stengele]

Bastien schrieb:
> John Rakestraw <lists@johnrakestraw.com> writes:
> 
>> Perhaps this is personal preference, but somehow it seems more
>> reasonable to me to reschedule from today. This not only avoids
>> problems if (I don't know that) an event is already scheduled, but it
>> also fits in better with my thinking about tasks. Even if it's Monday
>> and I'm thinking about rescheduling a task that's now scheduled for
>> Wednesday, I'm still inclined to think about the new date relative to
>> today rather than relative to Wednesday.
>>
>> So, even if it's merely my personal preference, that's my vote ;).
> 
> Since we're voting, I hope I'll cause no damage to any further agreement
> by voting for the *other* solution :)
> 
> Most of the time, I'm rescheduling when:
> 
> 1. the date of the event moved; in this case, it easier to reschedule
>    relatively to the initial date.
> 
> 2. the date is *today* and I want to delay the task: in this case, there
>    is no difference between the two solution :)
> 
> Okay, you might ponder my vote like this: (* vote .75) 
> 

I see passed events in agenda view and therefore see easily how may days 
they are already "behind".

Hence I would personally (!) also find it more "intuitive" to reschedule 
relatively.

rainer

Re: relative scheduling

[John Wiegley]

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

> - A good reason to make it relative to today is that you might not always
> know that the entry is already scheduled.  Using today as reference would be
> safe
>
> - A good reason for doing it relative to the scheduled date is that you are
> *re*-scheduling, and then it is a bit more logical to think "lets push this
> two days down"

I vote for relative to the current day, since I prefer to think in terms of
"days from now".

John

Re: relative scheduling

[Eddward DeVilla]

On 10/9/07, Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote:
> However, a different question pops up here.  When rescheduling,
> should the +Nd be relative to today, or relative to
> the currently scheduled date?

I don't have a preference.  Would it be reasonable to have both?
    +2d & now+2d
    +=2 & +2?

Just a thought.

Edd

Re: relative scheduling

[Bastien]

"Eddward DeVilla" <eddward@gmail.com> writes:

> On 10/9/07, Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote:
>> However, a different question pops up here.  When rescheduling,
>> should the +Nd be relative to today, or relative to
>> the currently scheduled date?
>
> I don't have a preference.  Would it be reasonable to have both?

This choice (select relative time depending on a date *or* today) might
affect other time-selection functions, so maybe an option would be okay?

-- 
Bastien

Re: relative scheduling

[Carsten Dominik]

On Oct 9, 2007, at 18:09, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> However, a different question pops up here.  When rescheduling,
> should the +Nd be relative to today, or relative to
> the currently scheduled date?
>
> - A good reason to make it relative to today is that you might not
>   always know that the entry is already scheduled.  Using today
>   as reference would be safe
>
> - A good reason for doing it relative to the scheduled date is
>   that you are *re*-scheduling, and then it is a bit more
>   logical to think "lets push this two days down"
>
> Votes?

OK, with no clear majority, the verdict is this:
I give the most weight to the uncertainty whether we a changing
an old time stamp or inserting a new one.  Therefore, "+4d" will
be always be measured relative to today.  However, you can
use "++4d" to explicitly specify that you want this relative
to the default date (which is today for new entries, and the
old date when modifying).

Also you will (in 5.12) be able to use +2w, +2m, and +2y.

- Carsten


>
> - Carsten
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>
>

--
Carsten Dominik
Sterrenkundig Instituut "Anton Pannekoek"
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Kruislaan 403
NL-1098SJ Amsterdam
phone: +31 20 525 7477

Re: relative scheduling

[Richard G Riley]

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

> On Oct 4, 2007, at 14:32, Richard G Riley wrote:
>
>>
>> Should something +3d work when rescheduling a task? It would be nice if
>> it did and be a little more consistent IMO.
>
> Yes, it would be more consistent so I will do this.
>
> However, a different question pops up here.  When rescheduling,
> should the +Nd be relative to today, or relative to
> the currently scheduled date?
>
> - A good reason to make it relative to today is that you might not
>   always know that the entry is already scheduled.  Using today
>   as reference would be safe
>
> - A good reason for doing it relative to the scheduled date is
>   that you are *re*-scheduling, and then it is a bit more
>   logical to think "lets push this two days down"
>
> Votes?
>
> - Carsten

for me, always relative to today.