From: Adam Spiers <email@example.com>
To: Jack Kamm <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: org-mode mailing list <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 11:09:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOkDyE9ZjdN4Me4Pi3poC3C4q8c=ivdWz2uqiWHrYfe8jmF3ZQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Thanks Jack for the helpful response and support of my assessment.
I do intend to fix this as part of my ongoing (but currently delayed)
work on improving agenda sorting and adding an option to manually sort.
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 07:07, Jack Kamm <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> > I further noticed that this overloading of the internal priority by
> > including timestamp and habit data causes disruption to the behaviour
> > I imagine most users would expect from `org-agenda-sorting-strategy'.
> > For example, if you have `priority-down' as the first entry in the
> > `agenda' section and `category-keep' as the second, then differences
> > in the SCHEDULED timestamp are included in the priority calculation
> > and can therefore prevent sorting of two adjacent [#B] items by
> > category. This seems like a bug to me, or at least breaks the
> > Principle of Least Surprise.
> I just ran into this issue you highlight here.
> In particular, I was trying to set the org-agenda-sorting-strategy to
> (priority-down scheduled-down)
> i.e., sorting by priority (highest first), and then within priority,
> sorting by scheduled (most recent first).
> However, the fact that the priority includes the scheduled timestamp
> makes this sorting strategy impossible.
> I agree this seems like a bug, in that it contradicts the written
> documentation as far as I can tell (for example, the *Help* for
> org-agenda-sorting-strategy mentions nothing of the fact that the
> priority includes the scheduled timestamp, and I don't see anything
> about it in the *Info* either).
> I imagine that many have gotten used to the default behavior of sort by
> highest priority, then by earliest scheduled timestamp, but we could
> keep this default behavior by adding "scheduled-up" after
> "priority-down" in org-agenda-sorting-strategy, as you allude.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-09 11:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-02 14:20 overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda Adam Spiers
2020-12-22 15:05 ` Adam Spiers
2020-12-22 23:38 ` Samuel Wales
2020-12-23 0:13 ` Adam Spiers
2021-03-09 7:07 ` Jack Kamm
2021-03-09 11:09 ` Adam Spiers [this message]
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).