From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eddward DeVilla" Subject: Re: depending TODOs, scheduling following TODOs automatically Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:53:21 -0500 Message-ID: References: <6dbd4d000710080626i52f0f0t9354addc33c0efee@mail.gmail.com> <20071008134353.GA10774@odin.demosthenes.org> <877ilxmimn.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <877ilxnh44.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87wstwk1sz.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IfGSa-0002As-RG for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:53:24 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IfGSZ-0002AU-5P for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:53:24 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfGSY-0002AR-W9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:53:23 -0400 Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.191]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IfGSY-0003tJ-JJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:53:22 -0400 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 19so1565776fkr for ; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:53:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87wstwk1sz.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Bastien Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 10/9/07, Bastien wrote: > "Eddward DeVilla" writes: > > It's more like, work can't even begin E until A, C & D are done. Work > > can't start F until A & B are done. > > Would the TRIGGER/BLOCKER be okay for that (assuming we can use John's > proposal of using lisp expressions and a set of predefined actions)? I think so. It kinda clicked for me in the other thread. I'd probably use BLOCKER more myself, but I think I like the idea of using it with TRIGGER to have a high level task that is marked done or would depending on it's sub tasks. It would be like a todo item equivalent to the [/] & [%] tokens in plain lists. > > Again, interesting, but different from where I was going. I'm not > > after editing as a side effect. Just planning and organizing. In a > > previous message you said it isn't as complex as package dependencies. > > I guess what I was after might be. > > Yes. I thought allowing side effects (forward) and checks (backward) > would be enough - for the sake of keeping implementation simple. That part of it is seems pretty simple and elegant. > Maybe this was just an over-reaction to the idea of GUID or labels, > which sounds like we are going into trouble. GUIDs did sound a little off for org. Labels would introduce a management /maintenance problem for the user. I felt I needed something to built my dependency relations with. It's hard to 'address' a todo item. Link's might be the best thing we have for that. For me, linear ordering would not be enough and requiring the hierarchy to model the dependencies will require me to break up tasks that logically belong together. It just might be that it's not time to address that though. Edd.