Re: depending TODOs, scheduling following TODOs automatically

[Bastien <bzg@altern.org>]

"Eddward DeVilla" <eddward@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm not really trying to deal with linear C depends and B which
> depends on A type things.  Those are easy.  I don't really need org to
> change the states for me.

Okay, but this was Rainer initial request.

> It's more like, work can't even begin E until A, C & D are done.  Work
> can't start F until A & B are done.

Would the TRIGGER/BLOCKER be okay for that (assuming we can use John's
proposal of using lisp expressions and a set of predefined actions)?

> Again, interesting, but different from where I was going.  I'm not
> after editing as a side effect.  Just planning and organizing.  In a
> previous message you said it isn't as complex as package dependencies.
> I guess what I was after might be.

Yes. I thought allowing side effects (forward) and checks (backward)
would be enough - for the sake of keeping implementation simple. 

Maybe this was just an over-reaction to the idea of GUID or labels,
which sounds like we are going into trouble.

-- 
Bastien