From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: depending TODOs, scheduling following TODOs automatically Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:41:32 +0100 Message-ID: <87wstwk1sz.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <6dbd4d000710080626i52f0f0t9354addc33c0efee@mail.gmail.com> <20071008134353.GA10774@odin.demosthenes.org> <877ilxmimn.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <877ilxnh44.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IfBas-0006FJ-SF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:41:38 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IfBar-0006F2-G7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:41:38 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfBar-0006Er-85 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:41:37 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.169]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IfBaq-0006sC-OH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:41:37 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m4so62985uge for ; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:41:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Eddward DeVilla's message of "Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:58:37 -0500") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org "Eddward DeVilla" 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