From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bastien <bzg@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Sticky Agenda buffer: Announcement and request for testing
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 07:33:40 +0200
Message-ID: <87mx6ts7kb.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <65860CF1-3D9B-497B-8EF7-AA7E87B28BEE@uva.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40825)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bastienguerry@googlemail.com>) id 1SEwM1-0003NM-3z
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 01:32:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bastienguerry@googlemail.com>) id 1SEwLz-0007gf-0D
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 01:32:28 -0400
Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:47531)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bastienguerry@googlemail.com>) id 1SEwLy-0007gN-NN
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 01:32:26 -0400
Received: by wgbdr1 with SMTP id dr1so2481689wgb.30
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <65860CF1-3D9B-497B-8EF7-AA7E87B28BEE@uva.nl> (Carsten Dominik's
	message of "Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:48:16 +0000")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: "Dominik, Carsten" <C.Dominik@uva.nl>
Cc: Org Mode List <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>

Hi Carsten and Max,

"Dominik, Carsten" <C.Dominik@uva.nl> writes:

> already in Januar, Max Mikhanosha had published the first
> version of his code to implement multiple agenda buffers.  I have
> worked with him over the last few weeks, and we think that
> it is now quite stable.

I've been trying the agenda-sticky branch a few times now and I love
this feature -- thanks a lot!

One request: I often use buffer restrictions in combination with agenda
views.  For example, I restrict to a first-level tree then run my daily
agenda on that tree.

In this case, using sticky agenda is a bit confusing because I expect 
a completely different agenda view while using the same agenda key (none
of the items in a tree are part of another subtree.)

Could we have an option allowing a set of rules (or a set of agenda
views) for which we want the rebuilding to be done automatically?  I
would turn on this for my daily agenda views.

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien