From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id wOrSIg5ZR2DJTwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 11:16:30 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id wB2kHg5ZR2CMOgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 11:16:30 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E35452B473 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 12:16:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:57426 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJaLk-0003pR-Mx for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 06:16:28 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60260) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJaFa-0006Pi-5m for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 06:10:06 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-f49.google.com ([209.85.208.49]:46504) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJaFY-0003DW-CV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 06:10:05 -0500 Received: by mail-ed1-f49.google.com with SMTP id w9so19178330edt.13 for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 03:10:03 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=C13HdMGmau8wMmZyOj2fy52Pjf2Ktwc+lm2FPTudCD0=; b=eU7TEeWbLPghwktyLtMAX+9oB8txymgrQaXvJQDF0PSOtYCMxJka8Y5AlFbq59fWBR Vt8QHmL6O+4fnHf5Fuw3wMOVxnGsZVtofJgXDeGLfuxscmPQ5EmoLolNGUijVTy0KRAn nvT3KIhEIVDSeoPEnmGlZlxrGhc+x4ZX0zUCzIV3GX+l7xbVqikn+P8y1/sFh92i7pUw SysHTJLrRfIJpZP8TtvDMM+r4akYKa7kLWouTtJQ6mLFn+5+Bol2qZlSzTSrKDUc5Hbv 1vyQwBPCa+f/OYIjqvMvtuwaYcDEhYWPyb/NtxZLaHJVJwkKpiL04EA4CGrpvUdEl2tJ 0c6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pQZUWsEGwM4M4s+GZuSM+uAiahjV9MTu4FU1ykYwTcwItkv38 iedLTOUHsUT8HWoPoxgIFP86UANOo3i6yB5GbRY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJymViNK+/nUxmOOpmGSwGxldTBOv+Lw1NXIq2Tm8NI8ISnhGCdoKvYkfqS8CZL9O2utjryvgTm6YjJfgbBh7Y4= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c7c8:: with SMTP id o8mr3363236eds.176.1615288202215; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 03:10:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201202142053.zexzdpmyv4ear3zc@gmail.com> <87v9a0rejm.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87v9a0rejm.fsf@gmail.com> From: Adam Spiers Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 11:09:51 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda To: Jack Kamm Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.208.49; envelope-from=adam.spiers@gmail.com; helo=mail-ed1-f49.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -13 X-Spam_score: -1.4 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: org-mode mailing list Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1615288590; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post; bh=C13HdMGmau8wMmZyOj2fy52Pjf2Ktwc+lm2FPTudCD0=; b=Xx4r58Qoidt0Z7bp7X53EhV6XPYKP+YVCggYHrbWv4aFb/mInXXg1DbtT0ZpZ+Eb2XHJpv p8PgjwSQOzGc3rq6KI2dR3qDhIl5YmxUp4AVqdGzqBNUQJ7XEd8mhdwEDTr1Mr2dFlJT80 jZs+vfB0AHoLc5K6WAMzcsikC1pg6XIY6iWEh6wQsHAdryE/zOL9aMt7XBfw9LZPRWd7l8 H0Q5NSimKJ/e5DnN0uzYcIaz5xvoWnW+i41CB+3y6ijz49lpnIi87cP+kLK/dR5ogNMFe3 4gx478CnnvvJ0DoKbC8VrQrijhzA5eP/0iRf7GPdJ1AupuDg0EMI5F6am5zgEw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1615288590; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=C8goKIVEqFa9Wgfr2Q9fj89Y6Hfy3h1jKywNgA9h6tMtzsF3kKV/ghXxcHkcX3KLgUGPzp 9HB831g1QRVUHzyUJwI1RrpFFajmLCrp/0qvLUpXQ9aax8xnZ94edEM7otu44KQRRG1UCH pRW/5ccxZc1AgthxJEUz76sdU74HcrIPpemn0hfgBHXJ2AUBgwOWMxzvQhJtMxP7jcr1NF GFDkzEss3TZWY/UiVI1MVak5WGFjxJCOTLCd9AJ6o6Y8MPn/WMeTs6RthUhf/nbK2AaFE4 bMkjAfhoIV0JUGu7jZCcDISUex3ZzkUJjgA7C9cvmfaUiRN0BuaD8UWM1TvBvQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM" header.from=adamspiers.org (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.28 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM" header.from=adamspiers.org (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: E35452B473 X-Spam-Score: -2.28 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: x4ixA18PsCRg 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 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. > > Jack