Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> [2020-11-29 16:01]:
> >> If the type of heading is "task" then I do not need to use "TODO" as
> >> it implies it is task. But Org headings do not have fixed types so it
> >> is visually and practically better to use TODO. Here would the
> >> inheritance be useful more than to tags. As if user marks one heading
> >> as TODO, then all subtrees could automatically get its TODO.
> >
> 
> This assumes the only things you have under a TODO heading is other TODO
> headings. That isn't how I structure my work. I might have many other
> headings under a TODO heading which are not tasks, but are perhaps
> related to the task. Sometimes I might have many tasks which are not
> dependent on each other and so are all at the same level.

That is amazing and true how you say. One heading may have many other
non-TODO related headings which should not inherit the tag.

When I was writing about htat I was thinking on database backed
tasks. Every node has its "type" and if type is "Action/TODO" then
such could inherit TODO tag to be visible. But if node is WWW, Note,
or other type of hyperdocument, then not. For me that would be only
visual tag, something in red color or similar or highlighted stuff
because the hyperdocument in the system already has "Action type"
assigned. Node or heading is already TODO internally. It is very
trivial on a press of a key to get all lines highlighted which are
TODO.

Other assignments from a parent can make more sense, for example if
task is assigned to group of 3 people then such designation could be
inherited or invoked to be inherited. If there are other designations
such as person connected, assigned, etc. all those may be inherited in
a subtree or invoked explicitly to be inherited. This spares user not
to type so much and curate tasks.