From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Wiegley Subject: Re: Re: Added support for "habit tracking" Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:20:13 -0400 Message-ID: References: <874opt290u.fsf@gmx.ch> <87zl7lzyfh.fsf@gmx.ch> <834CBDCA-5FC2-4A77-B47F-44F1DC5438DA@gmail.com> <1e5bcefd0910222310h29fe6327j3b56f916da0aeb48@mail.gmail.com> <1e5bcefd0910230824i820e70fsc4ff24b9978f069c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1075.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N1VIq-0000VB-Hz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:20:20 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N1VIo-0000TL-RV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:20:20 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58868 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N1VIo-0000TG-Nh for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:20:18 -0400 Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.92.147]:23679) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N1VIo-0004Sw-Ar for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:20:18 -0400 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so2239318qwc.24 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:20:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1e5bcefd0910230824i820e70fsc4ff24b9978f069c@mail.gmail.com> 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: Marcelo de Moraes Serpa Cc: Matt Lundin , Org-mode Mode On Oct 23, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote: > But isn't consistency in the long-run the fact that you have > actually *completed* them? Yes and no. I don't need to always complete them, and yet I could still be consistent. It's optimal to be perfectly consistent, but that's no what's expected. Missing a deadline is something else entirely, as one imagines there are consequences. Missing a habit is, well, just harder to pin down. > In this case, IMO, a weekly review is a habit, even though it does > not happen daily, it still has consistent period to be respected (1 > day, every seven days), and a deadline (the very same day). Or > habits need to be daily? I guess it all comes down to whether you just want the graph or not. A weekly review is really something you need to do every week, so it's just a repeating task. I have too have regular repeating tasks for things like downloading bank statements, paying the rent, visiting the dentist, etc. These are tasks which are _each important in themselves_. A habit, on the other hand, is never important in itself. It doesn't matter so much if I miss washing the dishes today. It's the _habit overall which is important_. As long as I wash them more often than not, I'm doing better than if I'd never used Org at all. The only difference between regular repeating tasks and habits is this: 1. Habits appear at the bottom of the agenda (by default) 2. Habits can be removed by hitting K 3. Habits have a little graph, since you need to see consistency over a period of time. Another difference between habits and tasks is this: If I get to the end of my day and there are tasks yet undone, it means I need to schedule them for another day. But if there are habits undone, *I never reschedule them*. Once I reach a point during the day when I know I no longer have time or opportunity to work on my habits, I just hit K and exclude them from the view. What it means is that I'll try again to do them tomorrow. But since tasks are, in a way, much more self-important, they need to be allocated to a certain day, or given a specific deadline -- whether or not that deadline repeats itself. John