From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Brand Subject: Re: Still Wishing for Snooze Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:24:47 +0100 Message-ID: References: <50FD86D4.8080105@up.edu> <877gn410o4.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <51018250.2050404@up.edu> <878v7i2p6k.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <5101BB9A.5000505@up.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34733) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U3TLJ-00015h-Ai for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:24:54 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U3TLF-0006WI-V5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:24:53 -0500 Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]:43102) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U3TLF-0006W0-Ns for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:24:49 -0500 Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id fq13so2750613lab.35 for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2013 07:24:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Org Mode Cc: "Andrew M. Nuxoll" On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Michael Brand wrote: > Let me only suggest an idea to deal with this, item-based: When the > DEADLINE =93warning period=94 would be generalized to allow positive > numbers then it would extend to a =93warning and delay period=94. Startin= g > with: > > * TODO [#B] Verify login to the virtual machines > DEADLINE: <2013-01-22 Tue +1w -0d> > > It could be delayed to <2013-01-24 Thu> which means two days later by > changing the =93warning and delay period=94 to 2d: > > * TODO [#B] Verify login to the virtual machines > DEADLINE: <2013-01-22 Tue +1w 2d> > > This would not show up in the agenda until <2013-01-24 Thu>. At that > date it would be shown with the desirable =93In -2 d.:=94 for overdue to > get the higher priority. When set to done it would become: > > * TODO [#B] Verify login to the virtual machines > DEADLINE: <2013-01-29 Tue +1w -0d> > > Note the change from 2d to -0d: It is important that when the date > repeats and has a positive warning period aka delay period then it > must be reset to -0d. Otherwise undesirable surprises are guaranteed. Resetting to just -0d would only be enough for this example, not for the common case where we don=92t know which DEADLINE warning period was in use before the DEADLINE has been delayed. Thus it looks like a DEADLINE delay would have to be _additional_ to the DEADLINE warning period. Some applications would require that the DEADLINE delay would affect only the warning date but not the due date of the DEADLINE. Other applications would require both to be delayed. Maybe even others only the due date. It simply means that this suggestion is still incomplete. I don=92t expect it to be refined. Michael