New variable request: org-archive-todo-only

New variable request: org-archive-todo-only

[Wanrong Lin]

Hi,

In my org file I have a mix of "actionable" items (TODO items) and 
informative items (notes, references and etc). Normally I only archive 
TODO items when they are done, and don't archive informative items 
(since most of them have some long-term value). So, can we add a new 
variable to "org-archive-todo-only" to control the behavior of following 
functions:

1. org-archive-subtree
     1) when org-archive-todo-only is nil, behave as it does now, with a 
little bit modification:
           - if the current heading is a TODO item and 
org-archive-mark-done is nil, check whether it is in a "DONE" state. If 
not, prompt for user confirmation.
     2) when org-archive-todo-only is t, if the current heading is a 
TODO item, behaves the same as 1). if the current heading is NOT a TODO 
item, prompt for user confirmation.

2. org-archive-all-done
     1) when org-archive-todo-only is nil, behaves as it does now
     2) when org-archive-todo-only is t, only checks the headings that 
are a TODO item.

Without the change to those functions, I have to be very careful not 
archiving something I don't want to.

I put in an advice by myself to change the org-archive-subtree behavior 
as above, but I can not do it with function org-archive-all-done. And I 
also think this may be an improvement that makes sense for many people, 
hence the proposal/request.

Thanks a lot for comments and consideration of the above.

Wanrong

Re: New variable request: org-archive-todo-only

[Bastien]

Wanrong Lin <wanrong.lin@gmail.com> writes:

> In my org file I have a mix of "actionable" items (TODO items) and
> informative items (notes, references and etc). Normally I only archive
> TODO items when they are done, and don't archive informative items
> (since most of them have some long-term value). So, can we add a new
> variable to "org-archive-todo-only" to control the behavior of following
> functions:
>
> 1. org-archive-subtree
> 2. org-archive-all-done

Good idea!

Maybe this could be more general like this:

(setq org-archive-maybe '((plain . never)
                          (todo  . confirm)
                          (done  . always)))

where "plain" refers to informative entries (no TODO keyword), "todo"
refers to entries with a TODO keyword, "done" refers to entries with 
a done-state TODO keyword.

This would apply for both org-archive-subtree and org-archive-all-done.

Maybe we could refine it a bit and have:

#+SEQ_TODO:   TODO(t) WAITING(w@) SOMEDAY(s$) | DONE(d) CANCELED(c@)
                                           ^

where the "$" sign means: always archive this todo keyword without
asking (i.e. override the value or `org-archive-maybe')

-- 
Bastien

Re: New variable request: org-archive-todo-only

[Wanrong Lin]

Bastien wrote:
> Wanrong Lin <wanrong.lin@gmail.com> writes:
>
>   
>> In my org file I have a mix of "actionable" items (TODO items) and
>> informative items (notes, references and etc). Normally I only archive
>> TODO items when they are done, and don't archive informative items
>> (since most of them have some long-term value). So, can we add a new
>> variable to "org-archive-todo-only" to control the behavior of following
>> functions:
>>
>> 1. org-archive-subtree
>> 2. org-archive-all-done
>>     
>
> Good idea!
>
> Maybe this could be more general like this:
>
> (setq org-archive-maybe '((plain . never)
>                           (todo  . confirm)
>                           (done  . always)))
>
> where "plain" refers to informative entries (no TODO keyword), "todo"
> refers to entries with a TODO keyword, "done" refers to entries with 
> a done-state TODO keyword.
>
> This would apply for both org-archive-subtree and org-archive-all-done.
>
> Maybe we could refine it a bit and have:
>
> #+SEQ_TODO:   TODO(t) WAITING(w@) SOMEDAY(s$) | DONE(d) CANCELED(c@)
>                                            ^
>
> where the "$" sign means: always archive this todo keyword without
> asking (i.e. override the value or `org-archive-maybe')
>
>   

This certainly will cover my own needs and is more flexible (which is 
one major reason why I use org-mode) than what I proposed. Thank you and 
look forward to having it in the future releases.

Wanrong