Re: relative scheduling

From: Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>
To: Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>
Cc: org-mode <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>,
	Richard G Riley <rileyrgdev@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: relative scheduling
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:07:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <34334713e11b3566c74936b47a265a17@science.uva.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <29178d4ffee1d1d7a249c67ca0592b65@science.uva.nl>

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