Why don't datetrees use timestamps?

Why don't datetrees use timestamps?

[Reuben Thomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 225 bytes --]

I'm using orgmode 8.2.10. When I use capture, the year/month/day headers
inserted aren't timestamps; why not? Is there a way to make them
timestamps? (I can't find anything about this in the manual.)

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 408 bytes --]

Re: Why don't datetrees use timestamps?

[Eric S Fraga]

On Sunday, 15 Mar 2015 at 17:35, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> I'm using orgmode 8.2.10. When I use capture, the year/month/day headers
> inserted aren't timestamps; why not? Is there a way to make them
> timestamps? (I can't find anything about this in the manual.)

I do not think you can customise this aspect of org.

In any case, I don't think it would make sense for the headlines in the
date-tree to have time stamps.  The time stamps, for me, belong with
actual entries so that you can manipulate an entry consistently such as
when refiling, for instance.  Having extra time stamps on the headlines
of the tree structure would confuse things, in my opinion.

Depending on how you insert entries into a date-tree, you can try to
ensure that the entries have the relevant time stamps.

-- 
: Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 24.4.1, Org release_8.3beta-820-gd92ef9

Re: Why don't datetrees use timestamps?

[Subhan Michael Tindall]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1403 bytes --]

You can use a custom capture template and have timestamps of various sorts inserted.
For example, I have one datetree I use that inserts a date/time stamp using %T (%t gives only date, not time)
See the documentation for capture (hit C-c C C  to get into the customize interface then scroll down)
Hope this helps!
Subhan

From: emacs-orgmode-bounces+subhant=familycareinc.org@gnu.org [mailto:emacs-orgmode-bounces+subhant=familycareinc.org@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Reuben Thomas
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:36 AM
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: [O] Why don't datetrees use timestamps?

I'm using orgmode 8.2.10. When I use capture, the year/month/day headers inserted aren't timestamps; why not? Is there a way to make them timestamps? (I can't find anything about this in the manual.)

--
http://rrt.sc3d.org

This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete the message.  Thank you.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4511 bytes --]

Re: Why don't datetrees use timestamps?

[Reuben Thomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1185 bytes --]

On 16 March 2015 at 16:52, Subhan Michael Tindall <SubhanT@familycareinc.org
> wrote:

>  You can use a custom capture template and have timestamps of various
> sorts inserted.
>
> For example, I have one datetree I use that inserts a date/time stamp
> using %T (%t gives only date, not time)
>
> See the documentation for capture (hit C-c C C  to get into the customize
> interface then scroll down)
>

​ My question was about the datetree entry headings of the form "2015-03-16
Monday". These aren't controlled by the template. I was interested to know
why these headings look very much like timestamps (and effectively are
timestamps, though at the top level they mention just a year and at the
second level just a year and a month), but aren't actual timestamps.

Eric Fraga said "I don't think it would make sense for the headlines in the
date-tree to have time stamps"; but my question is not why they don't have
time stamps, but why they ARE not time stamps (purely in the formal sense:
the information they contain is already effectively a time stamp, as far as
I can see).

I was hoping to discover the rationale for the design from a developer :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2214 bytes --]

Re: Why don't datetrees use timestamps?

[Reuben Thomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 869 bytes --]

​​
On 16 March 2015 at 16:52, Subhan Michael Tindall <SubhanT@familycareinc.org
> wrote:

>  You can use a custom capture template and have timestamps of various
> sorts inserted.
>
> For example, I have one datetree I use that inserts a date/time stamp
> using %T (%t gives only date, not time)
>
> See the documentation for capture (hit C-c C C  to get into the customize
> interface then scroll down)
>

​My question was about the datetree entry headings of the form "2015-03-16
Monday". These aren't controlled by the template. I was interested to know
why these headings look very much like timestamps (and effectively are
timestamps, though at the top level they mention just a year and at the
second level just a year and a month), but aren't actual timestamps.

I was hoping to discover the rationale for the design from a developer.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1805 bytes --]

Re: Why don't datetrees use timestamps?

[Nick Dokos]

Reuben Thomas <rrt@sc3d.org> writes:

> On 16 March 2015 at 16:52, Subhan Michael Tindall <SubhanT@familycareinc.org> wrote:
>
>     You can use a custom capture template and have timestamps of various sorts inserted.
>    
>     For example, I have one datetree I use that inserts a date/time stamp using %T (%t gives only date, not time)
>    
>     See the documentation for capture (hit C-c C C  to get into the customize interface then scroll down)
>
> ​ My question was about the datetree entry headings of the form "2015-03-16 Monday". These aren't controlled by the template. I was interested to know why these
> headings look very much like timestamps (and effectively are timestamps, though at the top level they mention just a year and at the second level just a year and a
> month), but aren't actual timestamps.
>
> Eric Fraga said "I don't think it would make sense for the headlines in the date-tree to have time stamps"; but my question is not why they don't have time stamps,
> but why they ARE not time stamps (purely in the formal sense: the information they contain is already effectively a time stamp, as far as I can see).
>

This is third-hand knowledge and guesswork on my part, but I think that
datetrees are used for things like journals: "that's what I did that
day".  Datetrees just give you a hierarchical structure of nodes for
easy navigation: you can look at your journal and open and close nodes
at will, so you can navigate to the date of interest. The fact that the
third-level headings look like timestamps is purely coincidental.

Timestamps are given to things that are going to appear in an agenda:
"that's what I have to do today, tomorrow or next week". They are
completely orthogonal to datetrees in that respect.

The stuff that ends up in your journal is stuff that (mostly) did not
appear in the agenda: all the little things that you did that day,
probably unplanned (otherwise they would be in the agenda!)

Not that the headings in a datetree couldn't be made into timestamps;
but that's not what people use datetrees for[fn:1]. The one thing that
would be facilitated if they *were* timestamps, would be clicking on one
and getting the day agenda for that long-gone day, so you could
reminisce about the other things that you did that day, that did not end
up in your journal. Maybe that's enough reason to make them
timestamps, but there are other (perhaps less convenient) ways
to do that.

Of course, I may be suffering from a failure of imagination: you might
be using datetrees in a completely different way, one where having the
heading be a timestamp is a very good idea, but I can't think of any:
if you *have* something in mind, do tell.

> I was hoping to discover the rationale for the design from a developer :)

You'll have to ask Carsten about it: he invented datetrees I believe (as
well as most of org), but he does not frequent org circles much these
days.

Footnotes:

[fn:1] Remember however my caveat about third-hand knowledge and
guesswork: I don't use datetrees.

Nick

Re: Why don't datetrees use timestamps?

[joakim]

Nick Dokos <ndokos@gmail.com> writes:

D> Reuben Thomas <rrt@sc3d.org> writes:
>
>> On 16 March 2015 at 16:52, Subhan Michael Tindall <SubhanT@familycareinc.org> wrote:
>>
>>     You can use a custom capture template and have timestamps of various sorts inserted.
>>    
>>     For example, I have one datetree I use that inserts a date/time stamp using %T (%t gives only date, not time)
>>    
>>     See the documentation for capture (hit C-c C C  to get into the customize interface then scroll down)
>>
>> ​ My question was about the datetree entry headings of the form "2015-03-16 Monday". These aren't controlled by the template. I was interested to know why these
>> headings look very much like timestamps (and effectively are timestamps, though at the top level they mention just a year and at the second level just a year and a
>> month), but aren't actual timestamps.
>>
>> Eric Fraga said "I don't think it would make sense for the headlines in the date-tree to have time stamps"; but my question is not why they don't have time stamps,
>> but why they ARE not time stamps (purely in the formal sense: the information they contain is already effectively a time stamp, as far as I can see).
>>
>
> This is third-hand knowledge and guesswork on my part, but I think that
> datetrees are used for things like journals: "that's what I did that
> day".  Datetrees just give you a hierarchical structure of nodes for
> easy navigation: you can look at your journal and open and close nodes
> at will, so you can navigate to the date of interest. The fact that the
> third-level headings look like timestamps is purely coincidental.
>
> Timestamps are given to things that are going to appear in an agenda:
> "that's what I have to do today, tomorrow or next week". They are
> completely orthogonal to datetrees in that respect.
>
> The stuff that ends up in your journal is stuff that (mostly) did not
> appear in the agenda: all the little things that you did that day,
> probably unplanned (otherwise they would be in the agenda!)
>
> Not that the headings in a datetree couldn't be made into timestamps;
> but that's not what people use datetrees for[fn:1]. The one thing that
> would be facilitated if they *were* timestamps, would be clicking on one
> and getting the day agenda for that long-gone day, so you could
> reminisce about the other things that you did that day, that did not end
> up in your journal. Maybe that's enough reason to make them
> timestamps, but there are other (perhaps less convenient) ways
> to do that.
>
> Of course, I may be suffering from a failure of imagination: you might
> be using datetrees in a completely different way, one where having the
> heading be a timestamp is a very good idea, but I can't think of any:
> if you *have* something in mind, do tell.

I often feel the same thing, that datetrees should use timestamps(the
'quiet' kind). The main reason is that I often write a journal entry the
day after, and it would be easier to manipulate the date like you do a
time stamp.

>
>> I was hoping to discover the rationale for the design from a developer :)
>
> You'll have to ask Carsten about it: he invented datetrees I believe (as
> well as most of org), but he does not frequent org circles much these
> days.
>
> Footnotes:
>
> [fn:1] Remember however my caveat about third-hand knowledge and
> guesswork: I don't use datetrees.
>
> Nick
>
>
>

-- 
Joakim Verona