From: Bernt Hansen <bernt@norang.ca>
To: Matt Lundin <mdl@imapmail.org>
Cc: Org Mode <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [off-topic/GTD]Only Next Actions list to rule them all ?
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:15:40 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87oco07e3n.fsf@gollum.intra.norang.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m263a8bm9k.fsf@fastmail.fm> (Matt Lundin's message of "Wed\, 21 Oct 2009 15\:05\:43 -0400")
Matt Lundin <mdl@imapmail.org> writes:
> Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <celoserpa@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On the other hand, most of this could be achieved by using the agenda
>> view and other org filtering features, and still keep a list of
>> projects, sub-projects and next-actions, all in one, like:
>>
>> (Always ordered by priority)
>>
>> * Projects and Next Actions
>> ** A project/outcome :PROJECT:
>> *** TODO Do something :HOME:
>> *** A subproject :PROJECT:
>> **** TODO Do something! :HOME:
>> *** TODO Do something else :OFFICE:
>>
>> Then, in the agenda, I can filter by HOME / OFFICE or TODO and would
>> have a flat list of actions too.
>>
>> More configuration, but more you get, when you view the Projects and
>> Next Actions list, the information of to which project this next action
>> belongs, which might not be that important, as I'm interested on doing,
>> not reviewing the landscape all the time, but could be useful sometimes
>> (when the action is not specific enough you can't tell the related
>> outcome).
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>
> Are you looking for us to convince you to organize your files by
> project? :)
>
> IMO, how the user chooses to organize his/her files is a moot point,
> since the magic of org-mode lies in the agenda. My agenda files consist
> of several thematic files (currently 21), each containing a variety of
> notes, projects, todos, etc. In the end, the organization of these files
> doesn't matter, since org-mode's agenda commands do a fantastic job of
> presenting me with clean lists of all my todos, while org-refile allows
> me easily to move items to different files and or subheadings.
>
> I prefer this method because it allows me to jump to rich contextual
> information from the agenda. For me, keeping next actions and projects
> separate within the org files would eliminate a major strength of
> org-mode and reduplicate what the agenda already does. But to each
> his/her own! :)
Agreed :) The agenda is not just about calendar dates, the agenda is
- A calendar view of dates (single day, week, month) (C-c a a)
- A list of todo items collected from multiple org-agenda-files (C-c a t)
- A general search tool through all of your org-agenda-files (C-c a /)
- A list of things matching tags (C-c a m)
and so much more (when you add custom agenda views etc). Filtering lets
you remove tasks quickly and easily based on tags or other criteria to
get your lists down to what you are really looking at. Then there's
agenda restrictions (to file or subtree) to further limit the initial
list of returned headlines.
If you're thinking the agenda is just about dates then you need to
revisit this and see how you can use this to your advantage.
I personally keep related tasks together in the same subtree. I collect
multiple subtrees in the same org file so I can add / remove the entire
thing from my agenda easily. For example one client is one file - with
multiple projects for that client in the same file. That just makes
sense logically (to me) - if I'm working on a task then stuff related to
it is close by in the same org file. The status of those tasks (next
item, todo item, just some note with further information, etc) is
irrelevant to where I place them in the tree - they're part of some
larger thing (project?) and are a sublevel of that thing.
-Bernt
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-21 19:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-21 5:15 [off-topic/GTD]Only Next Actions list to rule them all ? Marcelo de Moraes Serpa
2009-10-21 5:51 ` Manish
2009-10-21 12:13 ` Desmond Rivet
2009-10-21 12:22 ` Bernt Hansen
2009-10-21 18:06 ` Marcelo de Moraes Serpa
2009-10-21 18:30 ` Marcelo de Moraes Serpa
2009-10-21 19:05 ` Matt Lundin
2009-10-21 19:15 ` Bernt Hansen [this message]
2009-10-21 22:15 ` Marcelo de Moraes Serpa
2009-10-22 1:48 ` Bernt Hansen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87oco07e3n.fsf@gollum.intra.norang.ca \
--to=bernt@norang.ca \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
--cc=mdl@imapmail.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).