From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Interpretation of priorities in org-mode Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:22:36 +0200 Message-ID: <87lkcwxfw3.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <3c12eb8d0707301053q29699a34qe0a6801bd0fbb7@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IG1zD-0002Nj-Bu for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:22:47 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IG1zC-0002NS-9z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:22:46 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IG1zB-0002NE-Vn for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:22:46 -0400 Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.191]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IG1zA-0004uQ-IL for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:22:45 -0400 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g7so42551muf for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:22:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3c12eb8d0707301053q29699a34qe0a6801bd0fbb7@mail.gmail.com> (Piotr Zielinski's message of "Mon\, 30 Jul 2007 18\:53\:37 +0100") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Piotr Zielinski Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Piotr, "Piotr Zielinski" writes: > I've been recently experimenting with a different interpretation of > priorities: #B = tasks to do today, #C = tasks to do this week, #D = > all the rest, default. #A is reserved at the moment. One good thing > about this system is a clearer interpretation of priorities. When i first started using priorities, i was also leaned to misuse them as you describe, and my file ended up with top priorities everywhere. After a while, i discover it was better: 1. not to upgrade priorities too easily; 2. not trying to make them do an other job than their job. Let me explain myself a bit. The #1 advice seems obvious but it is hard to stick to it. One problem comes from Org-mode itself, because it makes it soooo easy to upgrade a priority that you often feel like upgrading one -- instead of completing the task under it :) Another problem comes from the fact that priority are dependant from each others. I think it's better to have something around 10%-[#A], 20%-[#B], and 30%-[#C], and changing the priority of a few tasks might disturb the balance. So here comes the #2 advice. Because i noticed that the reflex of upgrading too many [#B] to [#A] was just a way to make my Org files "say" something else (yes, my Org files *speak*), like "Do it next!" (which should be said by a TODO keyword) or "Do it today, you lazy bum!" (which could be said by the agenda...) So i try to keep a reasonable number of high-prioritized tasks and if i feel like i start to "upgrade" indecently, then i think twice about why i'm doing this. The thing is that i mainly use the priority system to have a useful display of the agenda view: (setq org-agenda-sorting-strategy '((agenda time-up priority-down) (todo priority-down) (tags priority-down))) (Okay, all of this is very nice but here is the truth: i got *tons* of chaotic tasks under misused priorities... but at least you get the way i would like to use them :) PS: just thinking: another way to use priorities could be to make lower tasks *dependant* (in they order of execution) from higher tasks. But i would prefer to make this dependance visible by using the display order, i.e. one task "after" another. Regards, -- Bastien