Re: Re: declaring items as implicit TODO entries

[Nathan Neff <nathan.neff@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2361 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Nick <oinksocket@letterboxes.org> wrote:

> Manish Sharma wrote:
> > "C-c a t" should show all the TODO items.  You may also want to
> > take a look at "org-agenda-todo-ignore-deadlines",
> > "org-agenda-todo-ignore-scheduled" and
> > "org-agenda-todo-ignore-with-date" as well.
>
> Thanks for your answer - however, I did come across those, and I don't
> believe
> they would do the job I have in mind, because items must still be
> explicitly
> labelled "TODO" before they will appear in the agenda view.
>
>
Nick,

Try using "m" instead of "t":

C-c a m LEVEL>2/-DONE RET

The "m" does a general tags/props search, instead of requiring a TODO state.

--Nate


What I mean is, give a file structure like this, where level 1 is a project
> name, and level 2 contain items to do (which are not labelled TODO items,
> necessarily):
>
> * SS Organised
> ** scrub the deck
> ** man the poopdeck
> ** DONE splice the mainbrace
>
> * Good ship lollipop
> ** NEXT lubber's teeth out
> (Beware, she bites)
> ** fix treadmill
> ** scrub the deck
>
> The workflow is TODO -> NEXT -> DONE, with TODO implicit: I consider "scrub
> the
> deck" a TODO, even though I've not added a TODO label, because it's on
> level >=
> 2. This saves typing and reduces clutter. (The level at which TODO items
> lie
> varies depending on my organisation scheme.)
>
>
> Then I want the TODO agenda view to look something like this, so I can
> print it
> out for reference (ideally without the duplicate TODO inserted in front of
> each
> item, as currently seems to happen,  but that's probably another question):
>
> Global list of TODO items of type: ALL
> Available with `N r': (0)ALL (1)TODO (2)NEXT (3)DONE
>  TODO:       scrub the deck
>  TODO:       man the poopdeck
>  NEXT:       lubber's teeth out
>  TODO:       fix treadmill
>  TODO:       scrub the deck
>
>
>
> It might not be possible to do this currently, which is fine - I just want
> to
> confirm that fact.  Perhaps in that case I could write my own extension, or
> more
> preferably, adapt my scheme to something which works with org-mode as it
> is.
>
> Cheers,
>
> N
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3382 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 201 bytes --]

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