From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id QE1vCItS1l/7CQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 17:42:35 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id mGY0BItS1l/cRQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 17:42:35 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F3359403E8 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 17:42:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:45752 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koVOD-00006N-Dz for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 12:42:33 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56062) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koVJ3-0008Qz-7V for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 12:37:13 -0500 Received: from stw1.rcdrun.com ([217.170.207.13]:47057) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koVIz-0002k7-JB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 12:37:12 -0500 Received: from localhost ([::ffff:197.157.34.185]) (AUTH: PLAIN securesender, TLS: TLS1.2,256bits,ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by stw1.rcdrun.com with ESMTPSA id 00000000000308F9.000000005FD65143.00004E5A; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 10:37:07 -0700 Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 20:31:13 +0300 From: Jean Louis To: Ihor Radchenko Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options Message-ID: References: <7330ab95c71d5d41d7fa6faffeaf300f@isnotmyreal.name> <20201211082501.GA18715@tuxteam.de> <871rfwctb2.fsf@localhost> <87y2i23vhr.fsf@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y2i23vhr.fsf@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/2.0 (3d08634) (2020-11-07) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.170.207.13; envelope-from=bugs@gnu.support; helo=stw1.rcdrun.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.80 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 7F3359403E8 X-Spam-Score: -1.80 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: AiXhzqClqbsw * Ihor Radchenko [2020-12-13 12:25]: > Jean Louis 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