Re: Culling org files

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

TRS-80 <lists.trs-80@isnotmyreal.name> writes:

> On 2021-03-03 16:59, Samuel Wales wrote:
> I have come to similar conclusion about "don't let org files get too
> big."  Besides agenda speed, I think it is just easier to
> conceptualize things when each file covers only a limited scope, trees
> are more shallow, etc.
>
> So, lately (last year or more), I have been trying a "many small (up
> to perhaps medium)" instead of "few big" files approach (along with
> some custom tooling) and it has been working /a lot/ better for me.  I
> really feel on top of things for the first time in a long time.  My
> agenda is not cluttered.  I can focus on important things, while not
> losing track of the rest, etc.
>

I agree with this. I have a similar approach. I consider the file system
and org files to be the initial 'structure' and have many smaller files
rather than a couple of very large ones. Only a subset of files play a
role in the agenda (I'm still experimenting with two different
approaches for this - one uses a couple of functions which can
dynamically change the agenda list and the other uses a naming
convention which is used as the basis of a search to determine what is
included in the agenda. Final rsult will likely be a combination).

My use pattern also constantly evolves as my requirements and priorities
change. It is and probably always will be, a work in progress!

--
Tim Cross