* Re: relative scheduling
2007-10-09 16:09 ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2007-10-09 17:33 ` John Rakestraw
2007-10-09 21:01 ` Bastien
2007-10-09 20:32 ` John Wiegley
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: John Rakestraw @ 2007-10-09 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 705 bytes --]
> However, a different question pops up here. When rescheduling,
> should the +Nd be relative to today, or relative to
> the currently scheduled date?
Perhaps this is personal preference, but somehow it seems more
reasonable to me to reschedule from today. This not only avoids
problems if (I don't know that) an event is already scheduled, but it
also fits in better with my thinking about tasks. Even if it's Monday
and I'm thinking about rescheduling a task that's now scheduled for
Wednesday, I'm still inclined to think about the new date relative to
today rather than relative to Wednesday.
So, even if it's merely my personal preference, that's my vote ;).
--
John Rakestraw
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: relative scheduling
2007-10-09 17:33 ` John Rakestraw
@ 2007-10-09 21:01 ` Bastien
2007-10-09 20:26 ` Rainer Stengele
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Bastien @ 2007-10-09 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
John Rakestraw <lists@johnrakestraw.com> writes:
> Perhaps this is personal preference, but somehow it seems more
> reasonable to me to reschedule from today. This not only avoids
> problems if (I don't know that) an event is already scheduled, but it
> also fits in better with my thinking about tasks. Even if it's Monday
> and I'm thinking about rescheduling a task that's now scheduled for
> Wednesday, I'm still inclined to think about the new date relative to
> today rather than relative to Wednesday.
>
> So, even if it's merely my personal preference, that's my vote ;).
Since we're voting, I hope I'll cause no damage to any further agreement
by voting for the *other* solution :)
Most of the time, I'm rescheduling when:
1. the date of the event moved; in this case, it easier to reschedule
relatively to the initial date.
2. the date is *today* and I want to delay the task: in this case, there
is no difference between the two solution :)
Okay, you might ponder my vote like this: (* vote .75)
--
Bastien
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: relative scheduling
2007-10-09 21:01 ` Bastien
@ 2007-10-09 20:26 ` Rainer Stengele
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Rainer Stengele @ 2007-10-09 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: emacs-orgmode
Bastien schrieb:
> John Rakestraw <lists@johnrakestraw.com> writes:
>
>> Perhaps this is personal preference, but somehow it seems more
>> reasonable to me to reschedule from today. This not only avoids
>> problems if (I don't know that) an event is already scheduled, but it
>> also fits in better with my thinking about tasks. Even if it's Monday
>> and I'm thinking about rescheduling a task that's now scheduled for
>> Wednesday, I'm still inclined to think about the new date relative to
>> today rather than relative to Wednesday.
>>
>> So, even if it's merely my personal preference, that's my vote ;).
>
> Since we're voting, I hope I'll cause no damage to any further agreement
> by voting for the *other* solution :)
>
> Most of the time, I'm rescheduling when:
>
> 1. the date of the event moved; in this case, it easier to reschedule
> relatively to the initial date.
>
> 2. the date is *today* and I want to delay the task: in this case, there
> is no difference between the two solution :)
>
> Okay, you might ponder my vote like this: (* vote .75)
>
I see passed events in agenda view and therefore see easily how may days
they are already "behind".
Hence I would personally (!) also find it more "intuitive" to reschedule
relatively.
rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: relative scheduling
2007-10-09 16:09 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-10-09 17:33 ` John Rakestraw
@ 2007-10-09 20:32 ` John Wiegley
2007-10-09 21:56 ` Eddward DeVilla
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: John Wiegley @ 2007-10-09 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
> - 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"
I vote for relative to the current day, since I prefer to think in terms of
"days from now".
John
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: relative scheduling
2007-10-09 16:09 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-10-09 17:33 ` John Rakestraw
2007-10-09 20:32 ` John Wiegley
@ 2007-10-09 21:56 ` Eddward DeVilla
2007-10-10 6:29 ` Bastien
2007-10-10 7:07 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-10-11 23:22 ` Richard G Riley
4 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eddward DeVilla @ 2007-10-09 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: org-mode, Richard G Riley
On 10/9/07, Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote:
> However, a different question pops up here. When rescheduling,
> should the +Nd be relative to today, or relative to
> the currently scheduled date?
I don't have a preference. Would it be reasonable to have both?
+2d & now+2d
+=2 & +2?
Just a thought.
Edd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: relative scheduling
2007-10-09 21:56 ` Eddward DeVilla
@ 2007-10-10 6:29 ` Bastien
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Bastien @ 2007-10-10 6:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
"Eddward DeVilla" <eddward@gmail.com> writes:
> On 10/9/07, Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote:
>> However, a different question pops up here. When rescheduling,
>> should the +Nd be relative to today, or relative to
>> the currently scheduled date?
>
> I don't have a preference. Would it be reasonable to have both?
This choice (select relative time depending on a date *or* today) might
affect other time-selection functions, so maybe an option would be okay?
--
Bastien
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: relative scheduling
2007-10-09 16:09 ` Carsten Dominik
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-09 21:56 ` Eddward DeVilla
@ 2007-10-10 7:07 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-10-11 23:22 ` Richard G Riley
4 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Carsten Dominik @ 2007-10-10 7:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: org-mode, Richard G Riley
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: relative scheduling
2007-10-09 16:09 ` Carsten Dominik
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-10 7:07 ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2007-10-11 23:22 ` Richard G Riley
4 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Richard G Riley @ 2007-10-11 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: org-mode, Richard G Riley
Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
> 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
for me, always relative to today.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread