From: Jean Louis <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Ihor Radchenko <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 22:39:42 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <X9e/fv/9Hd4BLHRM@protected.rcdrun.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <877dpklfha.fsf@localhost> * Ihor Radchenko <email@example.com> [2020-12-14 15:46]: > Jean Louis <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > Do you mean this: > > > > ** DONE Objective > > CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 20:00] > > *** TODO [#B] Step to do 1 > > *** TODO Step to do 2 > > > > when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is true I can still say DONE for > > Objective above. I have mentioned it today already. Maybe it works on > > your side, it does not work here. Do I do something wrong? I am on > > development Emacs version and it does not enforce under emacs -Q ... > I just looked into this more. Most likely you were trying to set this > variable manually. To take effect, this variable should be set using > customisation interface, before loading org, or you may need to run M-x > org-reload. That was it! Thank you. > I also find it helpful to combine the objective + a note about concrete > action to take on the objective. The concrete action helps to get > started on the objective without drowning myself into thinking (but not > doing) about all the things I need to do on that objective. Objectives here on my side also have their description which is meant more as communication, information and instruction to people doing it. Other notes that are maybe useful for management, thinkering, that would rather obstruct execution of single step are not written in those headings meant for execution. > Would you mind writing a paragraph or two to improve the "5 TODO Items" > section of the manual? At least, we can inform people that the ability > to scatter todo items all around the documents does not mean that it has > to be done. That would be nice. But me writing it for many would not be. It is better to define list of various paradigms of planning by group of people who are here on mailing list. Then such paradigms may be mentioned or referenced collaboratively. While this type of planning correlate to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management#Planning it may not correlate to many other people. So various types of planning should be presented in the manual. 1. Scattered method, putting notes, tasks in many various places and compensating for it with org-agenda 2. Project management as given on Wikipedia could then advise for this model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model#Model and describe such in short with reference to WWW hyperlink and advising Org users to define the objectives and next steps to be followed only if previous steps have been accomplished. It is natural to write notes related to action step together. But to avoid placing notes or action steps from different scope in one file. When one headline TODO have been accomplished then it is followed by next TODO headline. This way the steps are chronologically ordered. What do you think of that? 3. Project planning template could be included as laid out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management#Planning but in simpler way with the example Org template for some practical product such as "bread" in bakery or "software project". What do you think? Jean
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-14 19:43 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-11-29 18:52 daniela-spit 2020-11-29 20:07 ` Tom Gillespie 2020-11-29 20:19 ` daniela-spit 2020-11-29 21:01 ` Tom Gillespie 2020-11-29 21:02 ` Kyle Meyer 2020-11-29 22:08 ` daniela-spit 2020-12-11 3:59 ` TRS-80 2020-12-11 4:16 ` daniela-spit 2020-12-11 4:32 ` daniela-spit 2020-12-11 8:25 ` tomas 2020-12-11 13:47 ` daniela-spit 2020-12-11 13:59 ` Detlef Steuer 2020-12-11 14:18 ` daniela-spit 2020-12-11 14:23 ` Christopher Dimech 2020-12-11 14:26 ` Ihor Radchenko 2020-12-11 14:47 ` daniela-spit 2020-12-12 2:35 ` Jean Louis 2020-12-12 2:41 ` daniela-spit 2020-12-13 5:19 ` Jean Louis 2020-12-13 5:51 ` daniela-spit 2020-12-13 13:19 ` Jean Louis 2020-12-13 17:49 ` Christopher Dimech 2020-12-13 20:28 ` Jean Louis 2020-12-13 3:33 ` TRS-80 2020-12-13 8:46 ` Jean Louis 2020-12-13 9:28 ` Ihor Radchenko 2020-12-13 17:31 ` Jean Louis 2020-12-13 17:57 ` Christopher Dimech 2020-12-13 17:59 ` Christopher Dimech 2020-12-14 12:49 ` Ihor Radchenko 2020-12-14 19:39 ` Jean Louis [this message] 2020-12-11 14:43 ` tomas 2020-12-11 14:54 ` daniela-spit 2020-12-11 15:46 ` tomas 2020-12-11 15:58 ` daniela-spit 2020-12-11 6:25 ` Jean Louis 2020-11-29 20:15 ` Jean Louis 2020-11-29 20:46 ` daniela-spit 2020-11-29 20:58 ` Jean Louis
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=X9e/fv/9Hd4BLHRM@protected.rcdrun.com \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options' \ /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
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this 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 NNTP newsgroup(s).