From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Spiers Subject: Re: FR: multiple scheduling of one item? Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:51:50 +0000 Message-ID: <20080103125150.GG18716@atlantic.linksys.moosehall> References: <20071231152158.GN20947@atlantic.linksys.moosehall> <43E2D02D-CF49-4074-98C0-58D93E7B05F3@gmail.com> Reply-To: Adam Spiers 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 1JAPY9-000798-AV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:51:53 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JAPY8-00078Z-DB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:51:52 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAPY8-00078S-6d for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:51:52 -0500 Received: from mail.beimborn.com ([70.84.38.100]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JAPY8-0001u1-0d for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:51:52 -0500 Received: from mail.beimborn.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.beimborn.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m03CpoJL026338 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 06:51:50 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by mail.beimborn.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Submit) id m03CpoYv026333 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:51:50 GMT Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43E2D02D-CF49-4074-98C0-58D93E7B05F3@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: org-mode mailing list On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:44:08AM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote: > On Dec 31, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Adam Spiers wrote: > >Therefore it sounds like it would be useful to be able to schedule the > >same task for multiple slots. It turns out that the org-agenda code > >already handles this beautifully; if you do: [snipped] > This could be done of course - but I am not sure how common your use > case is. Admittedly not very common, and this is probably the lowest priority of any of the requests I have made recently. > And I quess it is nearly as easy to got to the entry and type > `SCHDEULED: C-c .' > for the few cases where you need it? Nearly - although presumably an implementation would also have the effect of allowing setting it from an agenda buffer? > If I nt forward to implement this, should the extra SCHEDULED stamp > be in the same second line of the entry, or in an extra line? Any > other votes on this issue? I don't really mind - whatever would work best for scaling out to 3 or more SCHEDULED stamps.