From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>
Subject: Re: relative scheduling
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 18:09:08 +0200
Message-ID: <29178d4ffee1d1d7a249c67ca0592b65@science.uva.nl>
References: <3jve9n6oxf.fsf@home.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IfId5-0001uz-RJ
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:12:23 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IfId4-0001tC-2q
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:12:23 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfId3-0001sc-DU
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:12:21 -0400
Received: from korteweg.uva.nl ([146.50.98.70])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <dominik@science.uva.nl>) id 1IfId3-0002XF-1X
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:12:21 -0400
In-Reply-To: <3jve9n6oxf.fsf@home.net>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Richard G Riley <rileyrgdev@googlemail.com>
Cc: org-mode <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>


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