Re: depending TODOs, scheduling following TODOs automatically

["Eddward DeVilla" <eddward@gmail.com>]

On 10/8/07, Russell Adams <RLAdams@adamsinfoserv.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:35:33PM -0500, Eddward DeVilla wrote:
> > I'm now at the point that I have several such projects in flight that
> > can block one another.  One thing I think I'm eventually going to have
> > to do is replace my checkbox lists to todo items lists.  Given that
> > multiple todo sequences are supported, that is now reasonable.
>
> I think the difference here is that I have settled into a routine of
> grouping by logical type, not implementation order. This is why
> dependencies appeal to me, because I can use them to order items
> without disrupting the logical relationships.

That's what I did to.  But my checkboxes lists had been very small
steps.  Projects were large collection of very small tasks.
Dependencies weren't that complicated.  The work I've moved into,
projects don't have many steps, but there are many more projects in
flight with a lot of dependencies, hard deadlines and starting a
project can be gated by arrival of hardware, or availability of people
who are too busy to write docs.

In any case, that part of the beauty of org.  It has several tools for
organizing and tracking info.  You can put them together in a lot of
different and useful ways.  The list of tools keep growing and Carsten
does an excellent job of keeping things consistent, easy to use and
independent.  It's rare that you have to learn a multiple features
just to use the one you want.  Yet the all interact well.  You can
learn it a piece at a time.

I've been dying to see dependency ordering added to that list.  Sounds
like there is some use for dependency based triggering.  They both
could be cool, but so far I'm not really attached to any of the
suggested implementations yet.

Edd