I noticed today that, at least in my set-up, setting these variables this way: (setq org-agenda-dim-blocked-tasks 'invisible) (setq org-enforce-todo-checkbox-dependencies t) means that a TODO task with checkboxes doesn't get included in the agenda. However, the sub-tasks in the checkbox list don't get included, either. So the TODO task with checkboxes doesn't show up in the agenda. It makes sense given the way the variables work. However, I wonder if it makes more sense for a task with checklisted sub-tasks to be included in the agenda so that the tasks and sub-tasks don't get lost. Or, to put the point slightly differently, I think that a TODO that's blocked because it has dependent TODOs might be treated differently in agenda listings than a TODO that's blocked because it has dependent checklist items. Not a big deal to me because I don't typically use checkboxes for TODO items. But I thought I'd raise it for consideration. --John
Good point, but non-trivial to implement. I'll put it on the list.
- Carsten
On Feb 1, 2009, at 9:44 PM, John Rakestraw wrote:
> I noticed today that, at least in my set-up, setting these variables
> this way:
>
> (setq org-agenda-dim-blocked-tasks 'invisible)
> (setq org-enforce-todo-checkbox-dependencies t)
>
> means that a TODO task with checkboxes doesn't get included in the
> agenda. However, the sub-tasks in the checkbox list don't get
> included,
> either. So the TODO task with checkboxes doesn't show up in the
> agenda.
>
> It makes sense given the way the variables work. However, I wonder if
> it makes more sense for a task with checklisted sub-tasks to be
> included in the agenda so that the tasks and sub-tasks don't get lost.
> Or, to put the point slightly differently, I think that a TODO that's
> blocked because it has dependent TODOs might be treated differently in
> agenda listings than a TODO that's blocked because it has dependent
> checklist items.
>
> Not a big deal to me because I don't typically use checkboxes for TODO
> items. But I thought I'd raise it for consideration.
>
> --John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Hi John,
I agree with your reasoning and have implemented this.
Tasks that are blocked because of checkboxes will not be made
invisible, only dim.
- Carsten
On Feb 1, 2009, at 9:44 PM, John Rakestraw wrote:
> I noticed today that, at least in my set-up, setting these variables
> this way:
>
> (setq org-agenda-dim-blocked-tasks 'invisible)
> (setq org-enforce-todo-checkbox-dependencies t)
>
> means that a TODO task with checkboxes doesn't get included in the
> agenda. However, the sub-tasks in the checkbox list don't get
> included,
> either. So the TODO task with checkboxes doesn't show up in the
> agenda.
>
> It makes sense given the way the variables work. However, I wonder if
> it makes more sense for a task with checklisted sub-tasks to be
> included in the agenda so that the tasks and sub-tasks don't get lost.
> Or, to put the point slightly differently, I think that a TODO that's
> blocked because it has dependent TODOs might be treated differently in
> agenda listings than a TODO that's blocked because it has dependent
> checklist items.
>
> Not a big deal to me because I don't typically use checkboxes for TODO
> items. But I thought I'd raise it for consideration.
>
> --John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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