Re: [bug] timed repeater shows up in wrong place

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Hello,

Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> writes:

> On 11/13/16, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:

>> If a nil `org-agenda-repeating-timestamp-show-all' treated time-stamps
>> with a repeater as regular time-stamp in the agenda, I could see a use
>> for that.
>
> not sure what you mean by this.

I mean that a variable ignoring all repeaters in agenda is useful. It
means that, e.g.,

  <2016-11-13 Sun +1d>

is seen as

  <2016-11-13 Sun>

To put it differently, this would ignore repeaters until the task is
marked as done, which is repeaters original purpose.

However `org-agenda-repeating-timestamp-show-all' seems to do something
different.

>> However, AFAIU, a nil `org-agenda-repeating-timestamp-show-all' treats
>> a time-stamp with a repeater as its closest repeat (from today). It
>
> which means today, right?  in org 9, this has changed.

It doesn't mean necessarily today. Let's assume today is <2016-11-13 Sun>.
Now, consider, e.g.,

 <2016-11-09 Wed +3d>

Closest repeat in the future is <2016-11-15 Tue +3d>, which is neither
today nor tomorrow.

AFAIU, a nil `org-agenda-repeating-timestamp-show-all' means that
nothing will appear on <2016-11-09 Wed>, but the task will be displayed
on <2016-11-15 Tue>, as if it was automatically marked as done without
my consent. Odd.

Note that I could understand the use for that. But there is worse:

   <2016-11-09 Wed .+3d>

In this case, I cannot possibly guess when the next repeat is going to
show, since it depends on the date at which the task is done. As
a consequence, treating the above as <2016-11-09 Wed +3d> is just plain
wrong IMO. Every repeat displayed in the agenda could be inaccurate.

>> makes little sense, in particular with schedules or deadlines.
>
> i don't get why.

Because schedules and deadlines are already repeated, somehow, in the
agenda. Today being <2016-11-13 Sun>, let's consider a task, not done
yet, with the following SCHEDULED time:

  <2016-11-09 Wed +1d>

I will get "Sched.4x". Yet closest repeat is today, so a nil
`org-agenda-repeating-timestamp-show-all' dumbly displays the task
without the "Sched.4x".

I lost the information the task started 4 days ago. If I mark it as
done, it still appears on today, without any feedback telling me it is
a new task that started 3 days ago, this time.

Why would I want that?

>> So, what is wrong with `org-agenda-repeating-timestamp-show-all' default
>> value?
>
> t you mean?  if i am showing today and tomorrow, or the whole week, i
> don't want to see the repeater show up on every day.

OK, if you mainly use "+1d" repeaters, it can be a bit verbose. But then
again, if `org-agenda-repeating-timestamp-show-all' ignored the repeat
altogether, it wouldn't fill up the agenda.

> i just want it to show up today.  then i doneify it, and then i just
> want it to show up tomorrow.  this is org 8 behavior for me.

Again, if `org-agenda-repeating-timestamp-show-all' ignored the repeat
part, you would still have this with schedules and deadlines, as
exhibited above.

The only difference would be with plain time-stamps (no SCHEDULED nor
DEADLINE keyword). In Org 8,

  <2016-11-09 Wed +1d>

appears today, no matter what "today" means for the agenda. Ignoring the
repeater would not make it appear today unless today is <2016-11-09 Wed>,
of course.

> not sure we're communicating accurately though.

It is difficult to communicate since the subject is not very well
defined.

In a nutshell, I fail to see any use for this variable for schedules and
deadlines (except, perhaps, in the future part of the agenda). I also
fail to see any use for it in conjunction with ".+" and "++" repeaters.

I can be wrong, but I'd like to understand where.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou