Re: Collaborating with TODO lists and clocks.

[Samuel Loury <konubinix@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1717 bytes --]

Sebastien Vauban <sva-news@mygooglest.com> writes:

> Having thought about that in the past, I had thought of adding "tags" after
> clock lines, such as:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>     CLOCK: [2013-09-05 Thu 07:55]--[2013-09-05 Thu 08:46] =>  0:51  :userA:
>     CLOCK: [2013-09-04 Wed 09:05]--[2013-09-04 Wed 09:41] =>  0:36  :devB:
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
That sounds good also.

> Though, having separate CLOCK drawers would even be better for Git merges,
> such as (keeping the idea of pseudo-tags):
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>     :CLOCK:userA:
>     CLOCK: [2013-09-05 Thu 07:55]--[2013-09-05 Thu 08:46] =>  0:51
>     CLOCK: [2013-09-04 Wed 09:05]--[2013-09-04 Wed 09:41] =>  0:36
>     :END:
>     :CLOCK:devB:
>     CLOCK: [2013-09-04 Wed 08:00]--[2013-09-04 Wed 09:03] =>  1:03
>     :END:
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I really like this solution.

> But, of course, a lot of development is required to make this become usable:
>
> - clocking reports (`R') must be updated with the knowledge of the current
>   user
>
> - clock checking functions (`v c') must be enhanced to ignore clocks from
>   other users
>
> - etc.
That is my point with the solution by customization of
org-clock-string. It appears to need only a few corrections of the hard
coded "CLOCK:" string (that would be required anyway) and it looks like
it would work out of the box without further development. Wouldn't it?

-- 
Konubinix
GPG Key    : 7439106A
Fingerprint: 5993 BE7A DA65 E2D9 06CE  5C36 75D2 3CED 7439 106A

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 489 bytes --]