From: Jack Kamm <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Adam Spiers <email@example.com>,
org-mode mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 23:07:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
> I further noticed that this overloading of the internal priority by
> including timestamp and habit data causes disruption to the behaviour
> I imagine most users would expect from `org-agenda-sorting-strategy'.
> For example, if you have `priority-down' as the first entry in the
> `agenda' section and `category-keep' as the second, then differences
> in the SCHEDULED timestamp are included in the priority calculation
> and can therefore prevent sorting of two adjacent [#B] items by
> category. This seems like a bug to me, or at least breaks the
> Principle of Least Surprise.
I just ran into this issue you highlight here.
In particular, I was trying to set the org-agenda-sorting-strategy to
i.e., sorting by priority (highest first), and then within priority,
sorting by scheduled (most recent first).
However, the fact that the priority includes the scheduled timestamp
makes this sorting strategy impossible.
I agree this seems like a bug, in that it contradicts the written
documentation as far as I can tell (for example, the *Help* for
org-agenda-sorting-strategy mentions nothing of the fact that the
priority includes the scheduled timestamp, and I don't see anything
about it in the *Info* either).
I imagine that many have gotten used to the default behavior of sort by
highest priority, then by earliest scheduled timestamp, but we could
keep this default behavior by adding "scheduled-up" after
"priority-down" in org-agenda-sorting-strategy, as you allude.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-09 7:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-02 14:20 overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda Adam Spiers
2020-12-22 15:05 ` Adam Spiers
2020-12-22 23:38 ` Samuel Wales
2020-12-23 0:13 ` Adam Spiers
2021-03-09 7:07 ` Jack Kamm [this message]
2021-03-09 11:09 ` Adam Spiers
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:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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
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).