Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

Am trying to put files to display my schedules using the code below.
I am seeing the schedule from meeting*.org, but those in household*.org
are not being shown in Agenda.

(setq org-agenda-files
   (append
            (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/todo*.org")
            (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/writing*.org")
            (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org")
            (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/health*.org")
            (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting*.org") ))

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jeremie Juste]

Hello

Could you try to add the file another way just for testing?
For instance open a file that match the path
~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org, then

execute M-x org-agenda-file-to-front in this buffer.
It is also bound to C-c [ by default.

If the file is shown in the agenda, it might be a wildcard issue.

HTH,
Jeremie








On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 16:39, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> Am trying to put files to display my schedules using the code below.
> I am seeing the schedule from meeting*.org, but those in household*.org
> are not being shown in Agenda.
>
> (setq org-agenda-files
>    (append
>             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/todo*.org")
>             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/writing*.org")
>             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org")
>             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/health*.org")
>             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting*.org") ))
>

-- 
Jeremie Juste

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

Yes, it shows.  That was a good test.

> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 5:51 PM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> Hello
>
> Could you try to add the file another way just for testing?
> For instance open a file that match the path
> ~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org, then
>
> execute M-x org-agenda-file-to-front in this buffer.
> It is also bound to C-c [ by default.
>
> If the file is shown in the agenda, it might be a wildcard issue.
>
> HTH,
> Jeremie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 16:39, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Am trying to put files to display my schedules using the code below.
> > I am seeing the schedule from meeting*.org, but those in household*.org
> > are not being shown in Agenda.
> >
> > (setq org-agenda-files
> >    (append
> >             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/todo*.org")
> >             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/writing*.org")
> >             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org")
> >             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/health*.org")
> >             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting*.org") ))
> >
>
> --
> Jeremie Juste
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

Have now removed /02histr/gadmin/household*.org and the entries are still there.  Does
it save things and got to reset something?  It has become very confusing.

> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 5:51 PM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> Hello
>
> Could you try to add the file another way just for testing?
> For instance open a file that match the path
> ~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org, then
>
> execute M-x org-agenda-file-to-front in this buffer.
> It is also bound to C-c [ by default.
>
> If the file is shown in the agenda, it might be a wildcard issue.
>
> HTH,
> Jeremie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 16:39, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Am trying to put files to display my schedules using the code below.
> > I am seeing the schedule from meeting*.org, but those in household*.org
> > are not being shown in Agenda.
> >
> > (setq org-agenda-files
> >    (append
> >             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/todo*.org")
> >             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/writing*.org")
> >             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org")
> >             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/health*.org")
> >             (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting*.org") ))
> >
>
> --
> Jeremie Juste
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jeremie Juste]

Hello,

|| On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 17:54, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> Yes, it shows.  That was a good test.
This is encouraging. So the problem might be in the wild card expansion
if you execute the following command do you get all the files you expect?

(file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org")


|| On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 18:01, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> Have now removed /02histr/gadmin/household*.org and the entries are still there.  Does
> it save things and got to reset something?  It has become very confusing.

The agenda files get stored in the variable org-agenda-files.
So if you do C-h v org-agenda-files then you will see all the file that
the agenda will show. If you want to remove a file you have two
options. 

1. modify the org-agenda-files directly
2. or go the file you want to remove and M-x org-remove-file .
   you can have more info by executing  this command - (info "(org) Agenda Files")

Of course, Don't forget to refresh the agenda. A trap I have often
fallen into  :-)

HTH,
Jeremie

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

Ok, let's check it out.

> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 6:41 PM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
>
> Hello,
>
> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 17:54, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Yes, it shows.  That was a good test.
> This is encouraging. So the problem might be in the wild card expansion
> if you execute the following command do you get all the files you expect?
>
> (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org")
>
>
> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 18:01, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Have now removed /02histr/gadmin/household*.org and the entries are still there.  Does
> > it save things and got to reset something?  It has become very confusing.
>
> The agenda files get stored in the variable org-agenda-files.
> So if you do C-h v org-agenda-files then you will see all the file that
> the agenda will show. If you want to remove a file you have two
> options.
>
> 1. modify the org-agenda-files directly
> 2. or go the file you want to remove and M-x org-remove-file .
>    you can have more info by executing  this command - (info "(org) Agenda Files")
>
> Of course, Don't forget to refresh the agenda. A trap I have often
> fallen into  :-)
>
> HTH,
> Jeremie
>
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 6:41 PM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
>
> Hello,
>
> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 17:54, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Yes, it shows.  That was a good test.
> This is encouraging. So the problem might be in the wild card expansion
> if you execute the following command do you get all the files you expect?
>
> (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org")

How does one execute the command exactly?

> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 18:01, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Have now removed /02histr/gadmin/household*.org and the entries are still there.  Does
> > it save things and got to reset something?  It has become very confusing.
>
> The agenda files get stored in the variable org-agenda-files.
> So if you do C-h v org-agenda-files then you will see all the file that
> the agenda will show. If you want to remove a file you have two
> options.
>
> 1. modify the org-agenda-files directly
> 2. or go the file you want to remove and M-x org-remove-file .
>    you can have more info by executing  this command - (info "(org) Agenda Files")
>
> Of course, Don't forget to refresh the agenda. A trap I have often
> fallen into  :-)
>
> HTH,
> Jeremie
>
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

Why does Agenda not simply honour the init file.  Many fume something awful
when you question them on how things are done.


> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 6:41 PM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
>
> Hello,
>
> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 17:54, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Yes, it shows.  That was a good test.
> This is encouraging. So the problem might be in the wild card expansion
> if you execute the following command do you get all the files you expect?
>
> (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org")
>
>
> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 18:01, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Have now removed /02histr/gadmin/household*.org and the entries are still there.  Does
> > it save things and got to reset something?  It has become very confusing.
>
> The agenda files get stored in the variable org-agenda-files.
> So if you do C-h v org-agenda-files then you will see all the file that
> the agenda will show. If you want to remove a file you have two
> options.
>
> 1. modify the org-agenda-files directly
> 2. or go the file you want to remove and M-x org-remove-file .
>    you can have more info by executing  this command - (info "(org) Agenda Files")
>
> Of course, Don't forget to refresh the agenda. A trap I have often
> fallen into  :-)
>
> HTH,
> Jeremie
>
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jeremie Juste]

|| On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 19:43, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> Why does Agenda not simply honour the init file.  Many fume something awful
> when you question them on how things are done.
It turns out that it does.

This what I have in my input file

(setq org-agenda-files
   '("~/Documents/academic-project.org" "~/Documents/when-tired.org"
   "~/Documents/work.org" "~/Documents/refile.org"
   "~/Documents/todo.org"))

just be careful about the custom-set-variables section. I you use
the command (org-agenda-file-to-front) to add files to org-agenda-files,
then if I'm not mistaken the org-agenda-files will get redefined in the
custom-set-variables section.

HTH,
Best regards,
Jeremie

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

Something is wrong.  Now I have done as follows, but Org Agenda still shows
meetings.

(setq org-agenda-files
   '("~/02histr/gadmin/todo.rcl.org"
     "~/02histr/gadmin/writing.rcl.org"
     "~/02histr/gadmin/health.rcl.org"))

;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org"
;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org"

> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:01 PM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 19:43, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Why does Agenda not simply honour the init file.  Many fume something awful
> > when you question them on how things are done.
> It turns out that it does.
>
> This what I have in my input file
>
> (setq org-agenda-files
>    '("~/Documents/academic-project.org" "~/Documents/when-tired.org"
>    "~/Documents/work.org" "~/Documents/refile.org"
>    "~/Documents/todo.org"))
>
> just be careful about the custom-set-variables section. I you use
> the command (org-agenda-file-to-front) to add files to org-agenda-files,
> then if I'm not mistaken the org-agenda-files will get redefined in the
> custom-set-variables section.
>
> HTH,
> Best regards,
> Jeremie
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Detlef Steuer]

Am Sat, 28 Nov 2020 20:16:52 +0100
schrieb daniela-spit@gmx.it:

> Something is wrong.  Now I have done as follows, but Org Agenda still
> shows meetings.
> 
> (setq org-agenda-files
>    '("~/02histr/gadmin/todo.rcl.org"
>      "~/02histr/gadmin/writing.rcl.org"
>      "~/02histr/gadmin/health.rcl.org"))

To take effect this setting must be executed C-x C-e
in a running session. See:
https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/efaq/Evaluating-Emacs-Lisp-code.html

Or, if still unsure how all this stuff interacts, restart emacs after
altering the init file. Don't ask how for long I did it that way.

Detlef

> 
> ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org"
> ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org"
> 
> > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:01 PM
> > From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> > To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> > Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> > Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
> >
> > || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 19:43, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:  
> > > Why does Agenda not simply honour the init file.  Many fume
> > > something awful when you question them on how things are done.  
> > It turns out that it does.
> >
> > This what I have in my input file
> >
> > (setq org-agenda-files
> >    '("~/Documents/academic-project.org" "~/Documents/when-tired.org"
> >    "~/Documents/work.org" "~/Documents/refile.org"
> >    "~/Documents/todo.org"))
> >
> > just be careful about the custom-set-variables section. I you use
> > the command (org-agenda-file-to-front) to add files to
> > org-agenda-files, then if I'm not mistaken the org-agenda-files
> > will get redefined in the custom-set-variables section.
> >
> > HTH,
> > Best regards,
> > Jeremie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> 

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:26 PM
> From: "Detlef Steuer" <steuer@hsu-hh.de>
> To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> Am Sat, 28 Nov 2020 20:16:52 +0100
> schrieb daniela-spit@gmx.it:
>
> > Something is wrong.  Now I have done as follows, but Org Agenda still
> > shows meetings.
> >
> > (setq org-agenda-files
> >    '("~/02histr/gadmin/todo.rcl.org"
> >      "~/02histr/gadmin/writing.rcl.org"
> >      "~/02histr/gadmin/health.rcl.org"))
>
> To take effect this setting must be executed C-x C-e
> in a running session. See:
> https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/efaq/Evaluating-Emacs-Lisp-code.html
>
> Or, if still unsure how all this stuff interacts, restart emacs after
> altering the init file. Don't ask how for long I did it that way.

That's what I've been doing, altering the init file, then restart emacs
by firing a new session.  This is defeating me.


> Detlef
>
> >
> > ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org"
> > ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org"
> >
> > > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:01 PM
> > > From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> > > To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> > > Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> > > Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
> > >
> > > || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 19:43, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > > > Why does Agenda not simply honour the init file.  Many fume
> > > > something awful when you question them on how things are done.
> > > It turns out that it does.
> > >
> > > This what I have in my input file
> > >
> > > (setq org-agenda-files
> > >    '("~/Documents/academic-project.org" "~/Documents/when-tired.org"
> > >    "~/Documents/work.org" "~/Documents/refile.org"
> > >    "~/Documents/todo.org"))
> > >
> > > just be careful about the custom-set-variables section. I you use
> > > the command (org-agenda-file-to-front) to add files to
> > > org-agenda-files, then if I'm not mistaken the org-agenda-files
> > > will get redefined in the custom-set-variables section.
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jeremie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jeremie Juste]

||On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 20:16, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> Something is wrong.  Now I have done as follows, but Org Agenda still shows
> meetings.

You have two checks to make,

1. what is the content of org-agenda-files?
2. refresh the org-agenda with the command (org-agenda-redo) usually
bounded to r in the org-agenda-mode

HTH,
Jeremie


||On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 20:16, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> Something is wrong.  Now I have done as follows, but Org Agenda still shows
> meetings.
>
> (setq org-agenda-files
>    '("~/02histr/gadmin/todo.rcl.org"
>      "~/02histr/gadmin/writing.rcl.org"
>      "~/02histr/gadmin/health.rcl.org"))
>
> ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org"
> ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org"
>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:01 PM
>> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
>> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
>> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
>> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>>
>> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 19:43, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
>> > Why does Agenda not simply honour the init file.  Many fume something awful
>> > when you question them on how things are done.
>> It turns out that it does.
>>
>> This what I have in my input file
>>
>> (setq org-agenda-files
>>    '("~/Documents/academic-project.org" "~/Documents/when-tired.org"
>>    "~/Documents/work.org" "~/Documents/refile.org"
>>    "~/Documents/todo.org"))
>>
>> just be careful about the custom-set-variables section. I you use
>> the command (org-agenda-file-to-front) to add files to org-agenda-files,
>> then if I'm not mistaken the org-agenda-files will get redefined in the
>> custom-set-variables section.
>>
>> HTH,
>> Best regards,
>> Jeremie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Jeremie Juste

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:55 PM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> ||On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 20:16, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Something is wrong.  Now I have done as follows, but Org Agenda still shows
> > meetings.
>
> You have two checks to make,
>
> 1. what is the content of org-agenda-files?

Still have not managed to get the information for point 1.
Would you be so kind to guide to the appropriate documentation as I do not know
how to run the commands you suggested.

Apologies for this.

> 2. refresh the org-agenda with the command (org-agenda-redo) usually
> bounded to r in the org-agenda-mode
>
> HTH,
> Jeremie
>
>
> ||On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 20:16, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Something is wrong.  Now I have done as follows, but Org Agenda still shows
> > meetings.
> >
> > (setq org-agenda-files
> >    '("~/02histr/gadmin/todo.rcl.org"
> >      "~/02histr/gadmin/writing.rcl.org"
> >      "~/02histr/gadmin/health.rcl.org"))
> >
> > ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org"
> > ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org"
> >
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:01 PM
> >> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> >> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> >> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
> >>
> >> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 19:43, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> >> > Why does Agenda not simply honour the init file.  Many fume something awful
> >> > when you question them on how things are done.
> >> It turns out that it does.
> >>
> >> This what I have in my input file
> >>
> >> (setq org-agenda-files
> >>    '("~/Documents/academic-project.org" "~/Documents/when-tired.org"
> >>    "~/Documents/work.org" "~/Documents/refile.org"
> >>    "~/Documents/todo.org"))
> >>
> >> just be careful about the custom-set-variables section. I you use
> >> the command (org-agenda-file-to-front) to add files to org-agenda-files,
> >> then if I'm not mistaken the org-agenda-files will get redefined in the
> >> custom-set-variables section.
> >>
> >> HTH,
> >> Best regards,
> >> Jeremie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Jeremie Juste
>
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

I've made some progress, I am getting

File: ~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org

This happens even though I removed the file name from org-agenda-files
in my init file, and restarted another session.

> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:55 PM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> ||On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 20:16, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Something is wrong.  Now I have done as follows, but Org Agenda still shows
> > meetings.
>
> You have two checks to make,
>
> 1. what is the content of org-agenda-files?
> 2. refresh the org-agenda with the command (org-agenda-redo) usually
> bounded to r in the org-agenda-mode
>
> HTH,
> Jeremie
>
>
> ||On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 20:16, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Something is wrong.  Now I have done as follows, but Org Agenda still shows
> > meetings.
> >
> > (setq org-agenda-files
> >    '("~/02histr/gadmin/todo.rcl.org"
> >      "~/02histr/gadmin/writing.rcl.org"
> >      "~/02histr/gadmin/health.rcl.org"))
> >
> > ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org"
> > ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org"
> >
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:01 PM
> >> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> >> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> >> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
> >>
> >> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 19:43, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> >> > Why does Agenda not simply honour the init file.  Many fume something awful
> >> > when you question them on how things are done.
> >> It turns out that it does.
> >>
> >> This what I have in my input file
> >>
> >> (setq org-agenda-files
> >>    '("~/Documents/academic-project.org" "~/Documents/when-tired.org"
> >>    "~/Documents/work.org" "~/Documents/refile.org"
> >>    "~/Documents/todo.org"))
> >>
> >> just be careful about the custom-set-variables section. I you use
> >> the command (org-agenda-file-to-front) to add files to org-agenda-files,
> >> then if I'm not mistaken the org-agenda-files will get redefined in the
> >> custom-set-variables section.
> >>
> >> HTH,
> >> Best regards,
> >> Jeremie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Jeremie Juste
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jeremie Juste]

|| On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 21:11, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> I've made some progress, I am getting

Very well. Then I guess that you have multiple variables named
org-agenda-files.

> File: ~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org
>
> This happens even though I removed the file name from org-agenda-files
> in my init file, and restarted another session.

Can you look for the file  ~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org in your init
file?

Best regards,

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

I have now identified the problem.  If incidentally, one of the user defined
files in org-agenda-files does not exist, emacs demands that the file if
removed.  Additionally Emacs takes over the user's settings by hardwiring
org-agenda-files at the end of the file .emacs.

This should be considered a bug.


> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 9:27 PM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 21:11, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > I've made some progress, I am getting
>
> Very well. Then I guess that you have multiple variables named
> org-agenda-files.
>
> > File: ~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org
> >
> > This happens even though I removed the file name from org-agenda-files
> > in my init file, and restarted another session.
>
> Can you look for the file  ~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org in your init
> file?
>
> Best regards,
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jeremie Juste]

On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 21:40, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> I have now identified the problem.  If incidentally, one of the user defined
> files in org-agenda-files does not exist, emacs demands that the file if
> removed.  Additionally Emacs takes over the user's settings by hardwiring
> org-agenda-files at the end of the file .emacs.
>
Glad you find the source the problem. Congratulations for your perseverance.

> This should be considered a bug.
It is not the behavior you expect but some people might rely on this
feature it is a matter of organization.  Emacs allows you to choose
which side you want to pick. Admittedly there are sometimes unexpected
default behaviors that don't please everyone but emacs offers choices.

Best regards,
Jeremie



>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 9:27 PM
>> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
>> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
>> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
>> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>>
>> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 21:11, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
>> > I've made some progress, I am getting
>>
>> Very well. Then I guess that you have multiple variables named
>> org-agenda-files.
>>
>> > File: ~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org
>> >
>> > This happens even though I removed the file name from org-agenda-files
>> > in my init file, and restarted another session.
>>
>> Can you look for the file  ~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org in your init
>> file?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>

-- 
Jeremie Juste

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 10:32 PM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 21:40, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > I have now identified the problem.  If incidentally, one of the user defined
> > files in org-agenda-files does not exist, emacs demands that the file if
> > removed.  Additionally Emacs takes over the user's settings by hardwiring
> > org-agenda-files at the end of the file .emacs.
> >
> Glad you find the source the problem. Congratulations for your perseverance.
>
> > This should be considered a bug.
> It is not the behavior you expect but some people might rely on this
> feature it is a matter of organization.  Emacs allows you to choose
> which side you want to pick. Admittedly there are sometimes unexpected
> default behaviors that don't please everyone but emacs offers choices.

Many thanks for helping me.  I would not have got to this stage without
your helpful commands and checks.

Getting used to a problem to the extent of depending on it is not a good system.
Emacs should follow what the user demands by default, with perhaps the option
for the user to change that behaviour.  But it is the user that should demand
it.  In situations when Emacs gets to do something so drastic, it should inform
the user what is happening and put that information in a log file.

Dani


> Best regards,
> Jeremie
>
>
>
> >
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 9:27 PM
> >> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> >> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> >> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
> >>
> >> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 21:11, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> >> > I've made some progress, I am getting
> >>
> >> Very well. Then I guess that you have multiple variables named
> >> org-agenda-files.
> >>
> >> > File: ~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org
> >> >
> >> > This happens even though I removed the file name from org-agenda-files
> >> > in my init file, and restarted another session.
> >>
> >> Can you look for the file  ~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org in your init
> >> file?
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Jeremie Juste
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jeremie Juste]

|| On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 22:45, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
>
> Many thanks for helping me.  I would not have got to this stage without
> your helpful commands and checks.
You are welcome ;-)
>
> Getting used to a problem to the extent of depending on it is not a good system.
> Emacs should follow what the user demands by default, with perhaps the option
> for the user to change that behaviour.  But it is the user that should demand
> it.  In situations when Emacs gets to do something so drastic, it should inform
> the user what is happening and put that information in a log file.
What you see as a problem some see as a solution. For instance, it depends how many
org-files you want to add to the agenda. Some users including me have 2
or three files in  org-agenda-files so I never interact with this
variable directly.

It seams that we cannot make everyone happy. :-), but we can hack our
way out of it together ;-). That is one of the purpose of this mailing
list I believe.


Best regards,
Jeremie

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 12:18 AM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 22:45, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> >
> > Many thanks for helping me.  I would not have got to this stage without
> > your helpful commands and checks.
> You are welcome ;-)
> >
> > Getting used to a problem to the extent of depending on it is not a good system.
> > Emacs should follow what the user demands by default, with perhaps the option
> > for the user to change that behaviour.  But it is the user that should demand
> > it.  In situations when Emacs gets to do something so drastic, it should inform
> > the user what is happening and put that information in a log file.
> What you see as a problem some see as a solution. For instance, it depends how many
> org-files you want to add to the agenda. Some users including me have 2
> or three files in  org-agenda-files so I never interact with this
> variable directly.

I have many and they change quite frequently, depending on project.
So often torture emacs hard.  Have sent a bug-report about it.  Keen
for a change to go through.

> It seams that we cannot make everyone happy. :-), but we can hack our
> way out of it together ;-). That is one of the purpose of this mailing
> list I believe.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Jeremie
>
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Tim Cross]

daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:

>> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 12:18 AM
>> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
>> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
>> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
>> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>>
>> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 22:45, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
>> >
>> > Many thanks for helping me.  I would not have got to this stage without
>> > your helpful commands and checks.
>> You are welcome ;-)
>> >
>> > Getting used to a problem to the extent of depending on it is not a good system.
>> > Emacs should follow what the user demands by default, with perhaps the option
>> > for the user to change that behaviour.  But it is the user that should demand
>> > it.  In situations when Emacs gets to do something so drastic, it should inform
>> > the user what is happening and put that information in a log file.
>> What you see as a problem some see as a solution. For instance, it depends how many
>> org-files you want to add to the agenda. Some users including me have 2
>> or three files in  org-agenda-files so I never interact with this
>> variable directly.
>
> I have many and they change quite frequently, depending on project.
> So often torture emacs hard.  Have sent a bug-report about it.  Keen
> for a change to go through.
>

What was the bug tracking number? I'd be interested in seeing what you
are wanting or what exactly you feel is a bug.

From following the thread and adding a lot of assumptions/guess work, I
think there are quite a few options to satisfy your requirements. Some
of them are fairly easy, some may need some basic elisp and some may
require a shift in user perspective. The choice depends a lot on what
the user is comfortable with.

This list is often really good at providing assistance. However, often
it is better to also outline what your actual high-level goal is rather
than as how to do a specific step in what you believe is the answer to
achieving your goal. Org mode is a powerful and feature rich system
which can take a bit of time to really understand. Sometimes, what you
believe is the solution to your problem can turn out to be something
which already exists, but in a slightly different form, so is not
recognised, or maybe is a bad idea or perhaps can be achieved easily by
slightly modifying the requirements in a way that does not impact on the
final goal.

As an example, you asked how to send a capture buffer to two files. It
would be good to understand why you want to do this because on the face
of it, there are some really good reasons NOT to do this. For example,
this will create two copies of the same data. If, for whatever reason,
you later need to update this information, you will have two places you
need to remember to update. If you only update one, at some point in the
future, you will be in a situation where you have two bits of
information about the same thing which are different and won't know
which is correct. Understanding why you want to do this will give list
members the opportunity to point out alternative solutions which may
meet your requirements, but avoid the possible problems with your
current approach.

It is a similar story with respect to the management of org agenda
files. There are many different approaches to this and understanding
your requirements rather than just helping you to fix the problem can
help.

From reading the thread and seeing the problems you had with executing
commands etc, I'm assuming you are relatively new to both Emacs and
org-mode. That is great and welcome! One of the big challenges for those
new to org mode is learning how to best use it for your needs.
Unfortunately, because it is such a flexible system and because everyone
has different needs and priorities, it is impossible for org to set
defaults which will satisfy everyone. It tries hard to find a middle
ground, but cannot be expected to always get it right. There is also a
need for the user to be willing to adjust their perspective to work with
org and not against it. This is largely true of Emacs generally. Those
who are most successful with adopting Emacs and org mode tend to also be
those who are willing to see new possibilities and perspectives.

Jeremy has mentioned he only has a few agenda files. I'm the polar
opposite - I have lots of agenda files and lots of org files which are
not members of the agenda file list. It took me a while to find the best
balance for my requirements and while how I manage things may not fit
with your requirements, I'm hoping outlining them and how I got to my
solution may give you some ideas.

Initially, I put pretty much everything into the agenda file list. This
worked fairly well until the size of these files began to get very
large. The biggest problem I had was my agendas were just getting too
large and complicated/distracting.

I then moved to a workflow where the agenda files really only contained
tasks and notes, references, pretty much everything else was put into
other org files not part of the agenda file list. I didn't like that
workflow. It complicated refiling and I lost the ability to keep all
related things together in a meaningful way.

I then came up with a workflow which worked a lot better where I had a
function (very simple one) which would change the list of agenda files
based originally on what project I was working on and then later a more
general type of work I was doing (at the time, I had 4 different 'roles'
- main job, consulting work, volunteer work and home). This worked well
for reducing the number/size of data which needed to be scanned when I
called up the agenda. However, I still found there was too much or too
many items in the agenda.

At this point, I started using tags to provide a way to generate smaller
agendas based on some specific criteria, such as the project I was
working on. This really began to help and I soon came up with some
standard agenda searches and views which really worked for me. My basic
workflow was functioning well.

From this point, it was about refinement. For example, realised there
are some tasks, such as scheduled tasks, which you always want to show
up in the normal agenda, regardless of which work 'mode' (work,
consulting, volunteer, home) I was in.

I now have a setup I'm very happy with. The final solution actually
comprises components from all my workflow iterations, but typically in a
much simpler and stripped down version. I still have the ability to
modify the agenda file list via a function 'on the fly', but only use it
sparingly (where I have a work situation where it needs to be kept
completely separate from everything else).

What I did discover during this process was that 90% or more of what I
needed already existed, I just didn't recognise it or understand it
enough to recognise it. Nearly all my customisation is now built using
org facilities, which is great because it makes things very stable. I
rarely get issues with org or emacs version upgrades.

What I learned from this process can best be summarised as -

1. When asking for help/guidance, outline the high level goal, not just
the details of a problem you are having in implementing your solution.

2. Initially, avoid customisation when possible. Work with the system in
default configuration for a while, even if some of it seems frustrating.
There are often subtle reasons things are configured in certain ways by
default which only become evident after using them for a while. Lots of
people have used and contributed to org over the years and how it works
has been refined to benefit from that experience.

3. If you think you need to change/adjust the list of files in the
agenda frequently, your probably wrong or are doing things in a
sub-optimal way. Consider how you can achieve your goal without changing
the agenda file list.

4. The first areas you will likely want to customise are capture
templates and agenda views. If your not familiar with elisp, you are
best off using the customise system to do this.

HTH

Tim
--
Tim Cross

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

 #44935

> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 2:36 AM
> From: "Tim Cross" <theophilusx@gmail.com>
> To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
>
> daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:
>
> >> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 12:18 AM
> >> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> >> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> >> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
> >>
> >> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 22:45, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Many thanks for helping me.  I would not have got to this stage without
> >> > your helpful commands and checks.
> >> You are welcome ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Getting used to a problem to the extent of depending on it is not a good system.
> >> > Emacs should follow what the user demands by default, with perhaps the option
> >> > for the user to change that behaviour.  But it is the user that should demand
> >> > it.  In situations when Emacs gets to do something so drastic, it should inform
> >> > the user what is happening and put that information in a log file.
> >> What you see as a problem some see as a solution. For instance, it depends how many
> >> org-files you want to add to the agenda. Some users including me have 2
> >> or three files in  org-agenda-files so I never interact with this
> >> variable directly.
> >
> > I have many and they change quite frequently, depending on project.
> > So often torture emacs hard.  Have sent a bug-report about it.  Keen
> > for a change to go through.
> >
>
> What was the bug tracking number? I'd be interested in seeing what you
> are wanting or what exactly you feel is a bug.
>
> From following the thread and adding a lot of assumptions/guess work, I
> think there are quite a few options to satisfy your requirements. Some
> of them are fairly easy, some may need some basic elisp and some may
> require a shift in user perspective. The choice depends a lot on what
> the user is comfortable with.
>
> This list is often really good at providing assistance. However, often
> it is better to also outline what your actual high-level goal is rather
> than as how to do a specific step in what you believe is the answer to
> achieving your goal. Org mode is a powerful and feature rich system
> which can take a bit of time to really understand. Sometimes, what you
> believe is the solution to your problem can turn out to be something
> which already exists, but in a slightly different form, so is not
> recognised, or maybe is a bad idea or perhaps can be achieved easily by
> slightly modifying the requirements in a way that does not impact on the
> final goal.
>
> As an example, you asked how to send a capture buffer to two files. It
> would be good to understand why you want to do this because on the face
> of it, there are some really good reasons NOT to do this. For example,
> this will create two copies of the same data. If, for whatever reason,
> you later need to update this information, you will have two places you
> need to remember to update. If you only update one, at some point in the
> future, you will be in a situation where you have two bits of
> information about the same thing which are different and won't know
> which is correct. Understanding why you want to do this will give list
> members the opportunity to point out alternative solutions which may
> meet your requirements, but avoid the possible problems with your
> current approach.
>
> It is a similar story with respect to the management of org agenda
> files. There are many different approaches to this and understanding
> your requirements rather than just helping you to fix the problem can
> help.
>
> From reading the thread and seeing the problems you had with executing
> commands etc, I'm assuming you are relatively new to both Emacs and
> org-mode. That is great and welcome! One of the big challenges for those
> new to org mode is learning how to best use it for your needs.
> Unfortunately, because it is such a flexible system and because everyone
> has different needs and priorities, it is impossible for org to set
> defaults which will satisfy everyone. It tries hard to find a middle
> ground, but cannot be expected to always get it right. There is also a
> need for the user to be willing to adjust their perspective to work with
> org and not against it. This is largely true of Emacs generally. Those
> who are most successful with adopting Emacs and org mode tend to also be
> those who are willing to see new possibilities and perspectives.

Thought it was a simple thing but it wasn't.  Emacs was overwriting my variable.
I am new to Org Capture, Org Agenda, Calendar, and Diary.  Have used Emacs
for work but never configured it myself.

> Jeremy has mentioned he only has a few agenda files. I'm the polar
> opposite - I have lots of agenda files and lots of org files which are
> not members of the agenda file list. It took me a while to find the best
> balance for my requirements and while how I manage things may not fit
> with your requirements, I'm hoping outlining them and how I got to my
> solution may give you some ideas.
>
> Initially, I put pretty much everything into the agenda file list. This
> worked fairly well until the size of these files began to get very
> large. The biggest problem I had was my agendas were just getting too
> large and complicated/distracting.

I have constructed four different Capture Templates and four Org Agendas
and then I can fire up the ones I want as I am working.

> I then moved to a workflow where the agenda files really only contained
> tasks and notes, references, pretty much everything else was put into
> other org files not part of the agenda file list. I didn't like that
> workflow. It complicated refiling and I lost the ability to keep all
> related things together in a meaningful way.

Have made capture and agenda by project, and then some functions
that group some of them together.  Not so sure how good it is going
to until I have used for proper work.

> I then came up with a workflow which worked a lot better where I had a
> function (very simple one) which would change the list of agenda files
> based originally on what project I was working on and then later a more
> general type of work I was doing (at the time, I had 4 different 'roles'
> - main job, consulting work, volunteer work and home). This worked well
> for reducing the number/size of data which needed to be scanned when I
> called up the agenda. However, I still found there was too much or too
> many items in the agenda.
>
> At this point, I started using tags to provide a way to generate smaller
> agendas based on some specific criteria, such as the project I was
> working on. This really began to help and I soon came up with some
> standard agenda searches and views which really worked for me. My basic
> workflow was functioning well.

> From this point, it was about refinement. For example, realised there
> are some tasks, such as scheduled tasks, which you always want to show
> up in the normal agenda, regardless of which work 'mode' (work,
> consulting, volunteer, home) I was in.
>
> I now have a setup I'm very happy with. The final solution actually
> comprises components from all my workflow iterations, but typically in a
> much simpler and stripped down version. I still have the ability to
> modify the agenda file list via a function 'on the fly', but only use it
> sparingly (where I have a work situation where it needs to be kept
> completely separate from everything else).

Good to hear some others have tried a more complicated setup than
customary.

> What I did discover during this process was that 90% or more of what I
> needed already existed, I just didn't recognise it or understand it
> enough to recognise it. Nearly all my customisation is now built using
> org facilities, which is great because it makes things very stable. I
> rarely get issues with org or emacs version upgrades.
>
> What I learned from this process can best be summarised as -
>
> 1. When asking for help/guidance, outline the high level goal, not just
> the details of a problem you are having in implementing your solution.
>
> 2. Initially, avoid customisation when possible. Work with the system in
> default configuration for a while, even if some of it seems frustrating.
> There are often subtle reasons things are configured in certain ways by
> default which only become evident after using them for a while. Lots of
> people have used and contributed to org over the years and how it works
> has been refined to benefit from that experience.

Org is quite ok.  But setting emacs takes much more time.

> 3. If you think you need to change/adjust the list of files in the
> agenda frequently, your probably wrong or are doing things in a
> sub-optimal way. Consider how you can achieve your goal without changing
> the agenda file list.
>
> 4. The first areas you will likely want to customise are capture
> templates and agenda views. If your not familiar with elisp, you are
> best off using the customise system to do this.

That was my task, get the capture and agenda working.

> HTH
>
> Tim
> --
> Tim Cross
>
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Tim Cross]

daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:

>  #44935
>
>> Initially, I put pretty much everything into the agenda file list. This
>> worked fairly well until the size of these files began to get very
>> large. The biggest problem I had was my agendas were just getting too
>> large and complicated/distracting.
>
> I have constructed four different Capture Templates and four Org Agendas
> and then I can fire up the ones I want as I am working.
>
>> I then moved to a workflow where the agenda files really only contained
>> tasks and notes, references, pretty much everything else was put into
>> other org files not part of the agenda file list. I didn't like that
>> workflow. It complicated refiling and I lost the ability to keep all
>> related things together in a meaningful way.
>
> Have made capture and agenda by project, and then some functions
> that group some of them together.  Not so sure how good it is going
> to until I have used for proper work.
>

I went down a similar route initially. In the end, found it was much
better to define your capture templates to be generic i.e. not tied to a
specific project, but rather based on what you are capturing and then
use things like tags and properties (which you can have capture prompt
for) to capture project specific information.

So I have the following capture templates

- TODO to capture basic tasks

- phone which I use to capture phone call information and track time.
  Actually, although it is called phone, I use it for any meeting type
  thing. I have to track time for billing purposes and need to record
  date and time of call for tracking purposes

- Mail to track important emails. Adds a link to the original message (I
  read email using mu4e).

- Notes For capturing general note information

- Bookmarks - I have a bookmarks.org file where I keep links to
  'interesting' things. Might be web sites, man pages, info pages etc.

- protocol capture - for org protocol capture handler e.g. capturing
  info from web pages in chrome.

That is about it. My approach is to make capture as quick and easy as
possible. I usually just want to capture something and file it away to
get it out of my head and let me focus on what I was doing.

All my capture templates write to a file called refile.org. When
capturing data, I don't need to think about where it goes, just capture
it an move on. At the start of each day, I open up the refile.org file
and 'refile' the entries, which is just a couple of key presses, into
the most appropriate org file. Many (not all) of the headings I refile
under will add appropriate tags via the org tag inheritance process,
which I use in various agenda views. This reminds me of what I have on
my plate and helps me plan my day. I was initially worried that having
to do this refiling every day would be a hassle. In fact, it has turned
out to be a bonus and rarely takes more than a couple of minutes, yet
not having to worry about where to file something right when I'm
capturing it is a great bonus as it makes it really fast. A meeting or
phone conversation which a client might result in me using capture
several times as I record tasks or notes.

I have a few stored agenda searches and a couple of customised agenda
views, plus I frequently make use of the tags to do ad hoc searches. I
have also defined additional TODO states (TODO, NEXT, STARTED, HOLD,
DELEGATED, CANCELLED and DONE). Some are setup to prompt for an
additional note e.g. DELEGATED to let me specify who it is delegated to
and HOLD to specify why it is on hold).

The rest of my org customisation is mainly about data exports (tweaking
PDFs, HTML, Markdown exports, babel settings and specialised reports,
such as timesheets or invoices). I use org for all my documentation and
some work situations and clients want these documents to comply with
their corporate standards e.g. include logos, specific colours and fonts
etc).

Tim

--
Tim Cross

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 4:51 AM
> From: "Tim Cross" <theophilusx@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
>
> daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:
>
> >  #44935
> >
> >> Initially, I put pretty much everything into the agenda file list. This
> >> worked fairly well until the size of these files began to get very
> >> large. The biggest problem I had was my agendas were just getting too
> >> large and complicated/distracting.
> >
> > I have constructed four different Capture Templates and four Org Agendas
> > and then I can fire up the ones I want as I am working.
> >
> >> I then moved to a workflow where the agenda files really only contained
> >> tasks and notes, references, pretty much everything else was put into
> >> other org files not part of the agenda file list. I didn't like that
> >> workflow. It complicated refiling and I lost the ability to keep all
> >> related things together in a meaningful way.
> >
> > Have made capture and agenda by project, and then some functions
> > that group some of them together.  Not so sure how good it is going
> > to until I have used for proper work.
> >
>
> I went down a similar route initially. In the end, found it was much
> better to define your capture templates to be generic i.e. not tied to a
> specific project, but rather based on what you are capturing and then
> use things like tags and properties (which you can have capture prompt
> for) to capture project specific information.

That looks adequate at first, but what if you want the history for a project
and gaant charts on how time was spent.  I mainly want it to figure out
if jobs are worth stopping or changing.

> So I have the following capture templates
>
> - TODO to capture basic tasks
>
> - phone which I use to capture phone call information and track time.
>   Actually, although it is called phone, I use it for any meeting type
>   thing. I have to track time for billing purposes and need to record
>   date and time of call for tracking purposes
>
> - Mail to track important emails. Adds a link to the original message (I
>   read email using mu4e).
>
> - Notes For capturing general note information
>
> - Bookmarks - I have a bookmarks.org file where I keep links to
>   'interesting' things. Might be web sites, man pages, info pages etc.
>
> - protocol capture - for org protocol capture handler e.g. capturing
>   info from web pages in chrome.

I got the same things actually.  Nothing too drastic.

> That is about it. My approach is to make capture as quick and easy as
> possible. I usually just want to capture something and file it away to
> get it out of my head and let me focus on what I was doing.

Same here, except for the tracking bit.

> All my capture templates write to a file called refile.org. When
> capturing data, I don't need to think about where it goes, just capture
> it an move on. At the start of each day, I open up the refile.org file
> and 'refile' the entries, which is just a couple of key presses, into
> the most appropriate org file. Many (not all) of the headings I refile
> under will add appropriate tags via the org tag inheritance process,
> which I use in various agenda views. This reminds me of what I have on
> my plate and helps me plan my day. I was initially worried that having
> to do this refiling every day would be a hassle. In fact, it has turned
> out to be a bonus and rarely takes more than a couple of minutes, yet
> not having to worry about where to file something right when I'm
> capturing it is a great bonus as it makes it really fast. A meeting or
> phone conversation which a client might result in me using capture
> several times as I record tasks or notes.
>
> I have a few stored agenda searches and a couple of customised agenda
> views, plus I frequently make use of the tags to do ad hoc searches. I
> have also defined additional TODO states (TODO, NEXT, STARTED, HOLD,
> DELEGATED, CANCELLED and DONE). Some are setup to prompt for an
> additional note e.g. DELEGATED to let me specify who it is delegated to
> and HOLD to specify why it is on hold).

I have done that but not done any customised agenda views.  Seems quite
difficult for me.

> The rest of my org customisation is mainly about data exports (tweaking
> PDFs, HTML, Markdown exports, babel settings and specialised reports,
> such as timesheets or invoices). I use org for all my documentation and
> some work situations and clients want these documents to comply with
> their corporate standards e.g. include logos, specific colours and fonts
> etc).

That's too advanced for me.

> Tim
>
> --
> Tim Cross
>
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Tim Cross]

daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:

>> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 4:51 AM
>> From: "Tim Cross" <theophilusx@gmail.com>
>> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
>> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>>
>>
>> daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:
>>
>> >  #44935
>> >
>> >> Initially, I put pretty much everything into the agenda file list. This
>> >> worked fairly well until the size of these files began to get very
>> >> large. The biggest problem I had was my agendas were just getting too
>> >> large and complicated/distracting.
>> >
>> > I have constructed four different Capture Templates and four Org Agendas
>> > and then I can fire up the ones I want as I am working.
>> >
>> >> I then moved to a workflow where the agenda files really only contained
>> >> tasks and notes, references, pretty much everything else was put into
>> >> other org files not part of the agenda file list. I didn't like that
>> >> workflow. It complicated refiling and I lost the ability to keep all
>> >> related things together in a meaningful way.
>> >
>> > Have made capture and agenda by project, and then some functions
>> > that group some of them together.  Not so sure how good it is going
>> > to until I have used for proper work.
>> >
>>
>> I went down a similar route initially. In the end, found it was much
>> better to define your capture templates to be generic i.e. not tied to a
>> specific project, but rather based on what you are capturing and then
>> use things like tags and properties (which you can have capture prompt
>> for) to capture project specific information.
>
> That looks adequate at first, but what if you want the history for a project
> and gaant charts on how time was spent.  I mainly want it to figure out
> if jobs are worth stopping or changing.
>

Not a problem. The thing to remember is that org allows you to 'report'
at different levels. You can have a report which considers all your
agenda files, or one which only considers a specific file or one which
only considers a specific subtree within a file.

I have an org file for each major project and a projects
file for smaller projects (and an org file for each client, which I view
as really being a project!).

The tasks associated with a project belong in the appropriate project
file (which is where they end up when I refile them).

I may have multiple 'sub-projects' within a project. This is determined
by what 'level' the task sits at. I might have a project
my-big-project.org. Inside that project, I might have headings for
Research, Development, Maintenance, Bugs & Issues, Documentation,
Meetings etc. Inside each of those headings I might have tasks (possibly
with sub-tasks and sub-sub-tasks etc).

So, lets say I have a Research subtree with the following tasks

* Research
** TODO Explore enhancement to HTTP/2 [0/4]
*** TODO Research HTTP/2
*** TODO Implement HTTP/2 in feature branch
*** TODO Test and benchmark HTTP/2
*** TODO Generate report for board
** TODO Migrate from REST to GraphQL API
*** TODO Research graphql
*** TODO Plan graphql implementation
*** TODO Implement new API
*** TODO Plan migration to production
**** TODO Merge into master
**** TODO Update API documentation
**** TODO Coordinate release with PROD team

All of the tasks have been captured using the same TODO capture
template. I can easily generate reports on total time spent in
development, total time spent in development for each main 'feature' or
time spent in each sub task or sub-sub task etc simply by selecting
different 'scope' and 'level' settings for the clocktable report.

In my project org files, I have a heading called '* Clocks', where I
have all my clock reports. I will have as many different clock reports
as required. For example, I might have one which clocks the time for all
tasks in the file with up to 3 levels, then I might have one which only
clocks the time for tasks in a specific subtree or perhaps one which
only clocks/summarises times for tasks with a specific tag. It is very
flexible.

I can easily see breakdown of time spent on specific tasks, groups of
tasks, project tasks, all tasks etc. All my tasks have basically the
same format and are captured using the same capture template. when a
clocktable report includes multiple files, there is a column which tells
you which file the task is in (if you want it). The clocktable can use a
single file, all files in your agenda, a list of files you specify, a
subtree within a file etc.

When I was forced to generate gant charts etc, I actually used task
juggler. There is a contrib library for it to make it work with org
files. It is a bit dated now and probably needs to be 'refreshed'. There
were a couple of irritating limitations which needed some hand tweaking
of the generated task juggler files, but it worked pretty well. Luckily
for me, I don't tend to work in projects which use gant charts anymore,
so it isn't something I've needed for a while. However, there was no
need for special capture templates (from memory, it was some years back,
I think there are some additional properties you may need to add, but
you can incorporate those into a capture template as well or just add
them afterwards when required).

>> So I have the following capture templates
>>
>> - TODO to capture basic tasks
>>
>> - phone which I use to capture phone call information and track time.
>>   Actually, although it is called phone, I use it for any meeting type
>>   thing. I have to track time for billing purposes and need to record
>>   date and time of call for tracking purposes
>>
>> - Mail to track important emails. Adds a link to the original message (I
>>   read email using mu4e).
>>
>> - Notes For capturing general note information
>>
>> - Bookmarks - I have a bookmarks.org file where I keep links to
>>   'interesting' things. Might be web sites, man pages, info pages etc.
>>
>> - protocol capture - for org protocol capture handler e.g. capturing
>>   info from web pages in chrome.
>
> I got the same things actually.  Nothing too drastic.
>
>> That is about it. My approach is to make capture as quick and easy as
>> possible. I usually just want to capture something and file it away to
>> get it out of my head and let me focus on what I was doing.
>
> Same here, except for the tracking bit.
>
>> All my capture templates write to a file called refile.org. When
>> capturing data, I don't need to think about where it goes, just capture
>> it an move on. At the start of each day, I open up the refile.org file
>> and 'refile' the entries, which is just a couple of key presses, into
>> the most appropriate org file. Many (not all) of the headings I refile
>> under will add appropriate tags via the org tag inheritance process,
>> which I use in various agenda views. This reminds me of what I have on
>> my plate and helps me plan my day. I was initially worried that having
>> to do this refiling every day would be a hassle. In fact, it has turned
>> out to be a bonus and rarely takes more than a couple of minutes, yet
>> not having to worry about where to file something right when I'm
>> capturing it is a great bonus as it makes it really fast. A meeting or
>> phone conversation which a client might result in me using capture
>> several times as I record tasks or notes.
>>
>> I have a few stored agenda searches and a couple of customised agenda
>> views, plus I frequently make use of the tags to do ad hoc searches. I
>> have also defined additional TODO states (TODO, NEXT, STARTED, HOLD,
>> DELEGATED, CANCELLED and DONE). Some are setup to prompt for an
>> additional note e.g. DELEGATED to let me specify who it is delegated to
>> and HOLD to specify why it is on hold).
>
> I have done that but not done any customised agenda views.  Seems quite
> difficult for me.
>

You are unlikely to need any customized agenda views initially. It
really just depends on how you like to work. I have one I use daily, but
can achieve the same thing using the existing capabilities - having a
custom agenda view just means a few less key presses.

>> The rest of my org customisation is mainly about data exports (tweaking
>> PDFs, HTML, Markdown exports, babel settings and specialised reports,
>> such as timesheets or invoices). I use org for all my documentation and
>> some work situations and clients want these documents to comply with
>> their corporate standards e.g. include logos, specific colours and fonts
>> etc).
>
> That's too advanced for me.

and you probably don't need to worry about it. It is all about what you
need. In fact, most of the advanced customisation I did to have colour
and logos in generated PDFs was for a specific government client where
bureaucracy and forced standards were easier to comply with than argue
against. I have used Latex for many years, so am quite comfortable with
making changes to how Org generates PDFs. If you have that knowledge, it
is actually very easy.

My invoicing stuff was something I put together just for my own
specific needs (someone else has actually asked about it, so I'm
creating a github repo for it).

--
Tim Cross

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jean Louis]

* Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> [2020-11-29 08:24]:
> * Research
> ** TODO Explore enhancement to HTTP/2 [0/4]
> *** TODO Research HTTP/2
> *** TODO Implement HTTP/2 in feature branch
> *** TODO Test and benchmark HTTP/2
> *** TODO Generate report for board
> ** TODO Migrate from REST to GraphQL API
> *** TODO Research graphql
> *** TODO Plan graphql implementation
> *** TODO Implement new API
> *** TODO Plan migration to production
> **** TODO Merge into master
> **** TODO Update API documentation
> **** TODO Coordinate release with PROD team

Unrelated to the message, the repetitive TODO above after some while
could lose the purpose of alerting the user. By habit user may
indurate to seeing TODO.

One among several definitions of "indurate"

4. inure, harden, indurate -- (cause to accept or become hardened to; habituate; "He was inured to the cold")

Then again there is problem that if TODO is forgotten the heading
loses its type of being actionable and more important, user may lose
track of forgotten TODOs.

Enhanced workflow would be that when actionable heading is added that
such cannot be changed easily to non-actionable. That would be something like:

- press key, maybe {C-c t} which would create

** TODO And user writes the heading

But TODO would not be possible to just remove, it would be the TODO
type. User could as usual switch to DONE or similar but the type of
heading would not be editable. One would better invoke some key to
remove the action type. That way Org editing and task creation would
be more rigid and help not in losing some of them.

> All of the tasks have been captured using the same TODO capture
> template. I can easily generate reports on total time spent in
> development, total time spent in development for each main 'feature' or
> time spent in each sub task or sub-sub task etc simply by selecting
> different 'scope' and 'level' settings for the clocktable report.
> 
> In my project org files, I have a heading called '* Clocks', where I
> have all my clock reports. I will have as many different clock reports
> as required. For example, I might have one which clocks the time for all
> tasks in the file with up to 3 levels, then I might have one which only
> clocks the time for tasks in a specific subtree or perhaps one which
> only clocks/summarises times for tasks with a specific tag. It is very
> flexible.

When I read your workflow it is interesting. It also reminds me how
much of those functions are built-in into PostgreSQL database and how
such backend could enhance and speed up things and minimize the
development of features that already exist.

Then heading become something like this:

** Heading
   DEADLINE: <2020-11-23 Mon> SCHEDULED: <2020-11-29 Sun>
   :LOGBOOK:
   CLOCK: [2020-11-30 Mon 10:15]--[2020-11-30 Mon 16:06] =>  5:51
   CLOCK: [2020-11-29 Sun 14:06]--[2020-11-29 Sun 20:06] =>  6:00
   CLOCK: [2020-11-29 Sun 12:06]--[2020-11-29 Sun 12:25] =>  0:19
   CLOCK: [2020-11-29 Sun 11:06]--[2020-11-29 Sun 11:35] =>  0:29
   CLOCK: [2020-11-29 Sun 10:15]--[2020-11-29 Sun 10:30] =>  0:15
   CLOCK: [2020-11-29 Sun 10:06]--[2020-11-29 Sun 10:10] =>  0:04
   :END:
   
And that is where Org defeats itself to be plain simple text. It wants
to be relational database. org-clock.el is great code of 114K and does
probably much more than the above ordering. Yet by using PostgreSQL
and maybe other SQL database in background, the clocking in and
clocking out becomes trivial and reliable:

- DEADLINEs may be entered in the database and their modifications can
  automatically be recorded for later review. Isn't that significant
  piece of information if person modified a deadline? That could be
  dodging of the work. Deadline could be displayed if necessary but it
  could also totally disappear. One only need unique way of
  identifying the heading.

- SCHEDULED the same, if it is changed it is piece of information
  indicating dodging. It should be recorded. Recording change into SQL
  database is trivial, it is normally just one function, 3-4 lines of
  Emacs Lisp.

- CLOCK-IN and CLOCK-OUT becomes also trivial. One database table may
  record all of them. Press key and CLOCK-IN is done. It could be
  displayed in various manners, under heading, or in message buffer or
  in separate info buffer, frame, etc. Total time spent can be easily
  calculated as that is the power of PostgreSQL and other SQL
  databases that may calculate periods of time and add them together.

Finally the above table of CLOCK data does not look human friendly to
me. It is good for advanced users. But even as advanced user I would
not like spending time in interpretation of data that is meant to be
interpreted by computer. I would rather like to be told like:

"Total time spent 12 hours and 58 minutes" and nothing much more.

Org provides this feature:

#+BEGIN: clocktable :scope subtree :maxlevel 2
#+CAPTION: Clock summary at [2020-11-29 Sun 10:17]
| Headline     | Time    |       |
|--------------+---------+-------|
| *Total time* | *12:58* |       |
|--------------+---------+-------|
| \_  Heading  |         | 12:58 |
#+END:

And this is all great, it just does not look to me human friendly. I
rather think of those workflows in simpler manner:

- Create clocked type of task
  
- When person starts working press key, it will be displayed in
  message buffer or by notification. It could be sent by email, SMS,
  chat to people of relevance. It should be without user putting any
  more attention to CLOCK IN than just a key.

  When employer arrives to company building such inserts its ID card
  into the machine for a second and may move on to the work.

  That is how CLOCK IN should be. No attention, no thinking, no funny
  and hackish displaying of dates. Just record.

- When person CLOCKS OUT, that should be just a key. Finished there

Tasks would then give human readable and this would mean readable by
any average English or other language speaker, and not only Org mode
user. Report has to be readable and understandable and users who
create such should not need to handle low level data.

While these does have meaning for Org users, it lacks various
relations to objects shown and for lack of relations and associations
it would give very little meaning to a reader who is not Org user.

** TODO Heading
   DEADLINE: <2020-11-23 Mon> SCHEDULED: <2020-11-29 Sun>
   :LOGBOOK:
   CLOCK: [2020-11-30 Mon 10:15]--[2020-11-30 Mon 16:06] =>  5:51
   CLOCK: [2020-11-29 Sun 14:06]--[2020-11-29 Sun 20:06] =>  6:00
   CLOCK: [2020-11-29 Sun 12:06]--[2020-11-29 Sun 12:25] =>  0:19
   CLOCK: [2020-11-29 Sun 11:06]--[2020-11-29 Sun 11:35] =>  0:29
   CLOCK: [2020-11-29 Sun 10:15]--[2020-11-29 Sun 10:30] =>  0:15
   CLOCK: [2020-11-29 Sun 10:06]--[2020-11-29 Sun 10:10] =>  0:04
   :END:

From my viewpoint of sending and assigning tasks to other people the
fragile nature of such text files could easily be disturbed by slight
typo. And report like that may be modified at any time by anybody and
I would not even know it any more. Assigner would need to use diff
files to know if the assigned Org task is really trusted and genuine.

If by different method user designats on the mobile phone the CLOCK IN
then this piece of information may enter remote database and by
subsequent CLOCK OUT, that is about all what one does. There
disappears the need for error prone clock tables and pieces of
information that are important but could be tampered at any time.

> I can easily see breakdown of time spent on specific tasks, groups of
> tasks, project tasks, all tasks etc.

That is great. Just that so much time is spent on people editing it
themselves. I can clearly see that Org as how it developed moves
towards structured data. It could be improved in that sense. And one
would not need a separate software database in background, it can be
just Emacs structure or EIEIO object that gets stored somewhere in ~/.emacs.d

When I am using Emacs browser eww and press `w' to copy a bookmark
that is all what I do there. I can yank it. But as user I am not
exposed to underlying process as that I do not need. If I need I could
get report. Or I press `b' for bookmark and anser `y' for yes. That is
all I need to do to *record* some piece of information. Later I can get reports.

Org tries to record everything in properties and displayes information
that makes the Org node less readable for third parties. If I was
measuring clock table for myself, then again I want to know reliably
how much time was actually spent to maybe charge fortime. Not that I
want to know each start and end time. And what if thereare 10 or 30 of
them? One can see that CLOCK function in Org would have so much use of
having it external and that it does not scale really.

With thirty employed people each of them in the field and bushes need
to come to report for a work. Report would need to be quick.

Forget the editing. There shall be list of persons supposed to come to
work. Call the name and clock-in by one key, and person can sign in on
paper without caller attenting. Next.

I know what is necessary there from personal experience as I was using
Org in the field to record people coming to work.

Using Org is slow in that case and cost money. As if I lose 20 minutes
excess time on 30 people that is already good money lost as their time
is paid anyway even if they are waiting during the roll call.

It needs better structured, quicker accessible, highly reliable, and
less disturbing process:

- Click to get list of employees for a roll call
  
- Call person's name, clock in. Person signs on paper in background.

- Talk shortly with person. Click for a note, write and close. No
  moving with arrows up and down, no searching, thinking of
  attributes, dates, etc.

  If it is TODO, click for TODO instead of a note to be recorded. Tell
  person what is to be done. Close buffer.

- Next. New person is called. Repeat all process.

Above is editing of structured objects on a meta level. Those become
Org file. But Org file editing is error prone especially in such
situations where speed is required. Org could benefit of using
database in background for quicker capturing of pieces of information.

My Org file editing for staff member roll call:

- Duplicate previous day heading into new heading for a new date. [1]

  This is redundant with the database backend. I can just open same
  list of employees. There is no need to duplicate headings for a new
  date, as date is tracked by the database.

- Go over the headings, now I need to open each heading to maybe see
  some attributes or get reminded for previous date. I have to use key
  movements pretty much to get to the information. With better
  structured approach it would be one click to see anything.

  ** 2020-11-10 Work day
  *** Employee A
  **** Tasks
  *** Employee B

  ** 2020-11-11 Work day
  *** Employee A
  *** Employee B

- Now call person, clock in for the work.

- Take care to enter new task under new subheading for the the staff
  member.

  It means it creates tasks related to one person but under different
  date. Tasks related to one person get sparse this way. Previous
  heading was indicating the date as it was collecting information by
  date. New heading is for new date. But list of people is same under
  every heading.

  Other way to go would be to make one list of people and then to
  create under each person new date and new clock tables. This way I
  get list of people not to repeat itself every day, but I get dates
  to be repeated and much more headings to make for each date under
  each person's name.

  ** Employees

  *** Employee A
  **** 2020-11-10 Work day
  ***** Tasks
  **** 2020-11-11 Work day

  *** Employee B
  **** 2020-11-10 Work day
  **** 2020-11-11 Work day

  Third solution would be to simply not bother with multiple headings
  but just to clock their work and to get reports of days and
  hours. For 30 days it would look like below.

*** Employee B
    :LOGBOOK:
    CLOCK: [2020-12-09 Wed 08:00]--[2020-12-09 Wed 18:00] => 10:00
    CLOCK: [2020-12-08 Tue 08:00]--[2020-12-08 Tue 18:00] => 10:00
    CLOCK: [2020-12-07 Mon 08:00]--[2020-12-07 Mon 18:00] => 10:00
    CLOCK: [2020-12-06 Sun 08:00]--[2020-12-06 Sun 18:00] => 10:00
    CLOCK: [2020-12-05 Sat 08:00]--[2020-12-05 Sat 18:00] => 10:00
    CLOCK: [2020-12-04 Fri 08:00]--[2020-12-04 Fri 18:00] => 10:00
    CLOCK: [2020-12-03 Thu 08:00]--[2020-12-03 Thu 18:00] => 10:00
    CLOCK: [2020-12-02 Wed 08:00]--[2020-12-02 Wed 18:00] => 10:00
    CLOCK: [2020-12-01 Tue 08:00]--[2020-12-01 Tue 18:00] => 10:00
    CLOCK: [2020-11-30 Mon 08:00]--[2020-11-30 Mon 18:00] => 10:00
    CLOCK: [2020-11-29 Sun 08:00]--[2020-11-29 Sun 18:00] => 10:00
    :END:

Plus the addition of notes and tasks for the employee.

Thus there is no nice integrated solution to that problem of data
getting sparse by using Org file. That is where I have to jump to what
I name meta level. Solution is in following.

1. Employee A
2. Employee B <--------- selected line
3. Employee C

There is no editing of the structure of text any more. 

- If I have finished with employee A, I would call Employee B.

- if employee is not there, his friend may say he is after goats being
  stolen. Press `n' for note, write shortly in a new buffer, close. I
  am not thinking of headlines as headline can be date and time, but
  it need not be displayed for me. I am not thinking of date created
  for the note as it has been automatically recorded.

- if employee is there present, I can press clock in, like `c' and
  tell "go ahead". Employee may sign on paper to be there. Signing and
  talking are different actions so I cannot let people just sign on
  paper. Clock in does not require me to do nothing but `c' and I am
  not disturbed with any kind of hackish and for third parties
  nonsensical CLOCK tables.

- if I need to assign task, I could press `t' write the task, close
  buffer, task is printed automatically and somebody will give it to
  employee.

  But I do not need to think: where to place headline, that I do not
  make some mistake in typing, that I place "TODO". If I pressed `t'
  that is TODO, and type of the node is TODO, finished there.

No thinking of editing, arrows, directions, attributes, properties,
etc. Database does that and my decision is summarized by one key.

If I need to see tasks not done for employee I press other key and see
them together with notes. But no need to browse for it, scroll down,
up, etc until I can see it as nodes are anyway collapsed and pretty
large list is visible at once. There is no error prone editing.

When I am working on a person, I am also using speech output by using
`festival'. This makes it easier for people around me to jump in if
there is some correction necessary. In 30 days or 60 days of work I
can be good typer and editor, but the attention when doing such roll
call asks for many things, like looking outside of the office,
inviting employees to sit down, talking with them, inviting other
people. Cursor can move from one place or one employee's heading to
other and I may skip it. In other words it asks for too much of human
attention to get things done without errors. In 30 days there are few
errors that I discover later.

If the highlighted line is on this selected line and on any action
related to this person the action is actually spoken. If I choose
task, it is spoken as "Task for Joe Doe". Instead of moving cursors to
right place, then editing headline, assigning task to person, new
buffer is opened and task is assigned automatically to the relevant
person, headline is assigned from the date.

1. Employee A
2. Employee B <--------- selected line
3. Employee C
   
There is no duplicated headline in front of me and no duplicated
headline that means "DATE" in front of me, as such dates are in the
database. But I am not watching them neither need to put attention on
them. I like to put attention on the design of the process one time
and then use the process many times in future without thinking any
more of all the typing.

Calculating periods with PostgreSQL is trivial:

SELECT timestamp '2001-09-28 19:00' - timestamp '2001-09-28 08:00';
 ?column? 
----------
 11:00:00

Data like CLOCK table with timestamps can be all together in one table
with relation for each entry to specific task.

All the CLOCK IN and CLOCK OUT results related to specific task can be
selected and simple sum() function used:

SELECT sum((timestamp '2001-09-28 19:00' - timestamp '2001-09-28 08:00') + (timestamp '2001-09-29 19:00' - timestamp '2001-09-29 08:00'));

10000 rows or 20000 rows coul be as well selected without visible
delay. It means that for a single task accounted with CLOCK
information the selection is very fast.

By using ::interval on the end, one can get more meaningful information:

admin=# SELECT sum((timestamp '2001-10-21 19:00' - timestamp '2001-09-28 08:00') + (timestamp '2001-09-29 19:00' - timestamp '2001-09-29 08:00'))::interval;
       sum        
------------------
 23 days 22:00:00

By using Emacs skeleton as this one: http://ix.io/2FTd one may create
the SQL table quite quickly.

I would first define types:

CREATE TABLE timestamptypes (
timestamptypes_id SERIAL NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
timestamptypes_name TEXT NOT NULL,
timestamptypes_description TEXT
);

As types can tell for example if it is:

- SCHEDULED
- DEADLINE
- CLOCK-IN
- CLOCK-OUT

rcdbusiness=# INSERT INTO timestamptypes (timestamptypes_name) VALUES ('SCHEDULED');
INSERT 0 1
rcdbusiness=# INSERT INTO timestamptypes (timestamptypes_name) VALUES ('DEADLINE');
INSERT 0 1
rcdbusiness=# INSERT INTO timestamptypes (timestamptypes_name) VALUES ('CLOCK-IN');
INSERT 0 1
rcdbusiness=# INSERT INTO timestamptypes (timestamptypes_name) VALUES ('CLOCK-OUT');
INSERT 0 1

and what else one may need. New timestamp types can be added as one
wish and want. But there is no need to add them per Org file. Adding
one time in central database is fine. I may need to give types such as
NO-SCHEDULED or NO-DEADLINE to keep the previous SCHEDULED still
recorded in the database. If I do not want to calculate
CLOCK-IN/CLOCK-OUT, but I still wish to keep track of it, maybe I wish
to add "NO-CLOCK" type. 

One can make better comments on the table and columns:

COMMENT ON TABLE timestamptypes IS 'Time Stamp Types';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamptypes.timestamptypes_id IS 'ID';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamptypes.timestamptypes_name IS 'Name';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamptypes.timestamptypes_description IS 'Description';

Then in the next step I define the `timestamps' table:

CREATE TABLE timestamps (
timestamps_id SERIAL NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
timestamps_datecreated TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP NOT NULL,
timestamps_datemodified TIMESTAMP,
timestamps_usercreated TEXT NOT NULL DEFAULT current_user,
timestamps_usermodified TEXT NOT NULL DEFAULT current_user,
timestamps_timestamp TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE NOT NULL,
timestamps_timestampstypes INT4 REFERENCES timestamptypes NOT NULL,
timestamps_tasks INT4 REFERENCES tasks,
timestamps_adminscaletasks INT4 REFERENCES adminscaletasks,
timestamps_hlinks INT4 REFERENCES hlinks,
timestamps_description TEXT
);
GRANT ALL ON timestamps TO PUBLIC;

Using skeleton that definition becomes trivial.

Some comments:

COMMENT ON TABLE timestamps IS 'Timestamps';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamps.timestamps_id IS 'ID';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamps.timestamps_datecreated IS 'Date created';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamps.timestamps_datemodified IS 'Date modified';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamps.timestamps_usercreated IS 'User created';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamps.timestamps_usermodified IS 'User modified';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamps.timestamps_timestamp IS 'Timestamp';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamps.timestamps_timestampstypes IS 'Type';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamps.timestamps_description IS 'Description';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamps.timestamps_tasks IS 'Task';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamps.timestamps_adminscaletasks IS 'Admin Scale Task';
COMMENT ON COLUMN timestamps.timestamps_hlinks IS 'Hyperdocument Task';

And some trigger to know which user edited the timestamp and when:

-- Triggers
-- For Date Modified
CREATE TRIGGER timestamps_moddatetime
BEFORE UPDATE ON timestamps
FOR EACH ROW
EXECUTE PROCEDURE moddatetime(timestamps_datemodified);

-- For User Modified
CREATE TRIGGER insert_username_timestamps
BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE ON timestamps
FOR EACH ROW
EXECUTE PROCEDURE insert_username(timestamps_usermodified);

After that definition once and now for next decades, I have forgotten
about timestamps and need not necessarily know how they look like. I
can press "i" for CLOCK-IN and if I am located in the object "Task"
with the ID number 3 computer will assign it correctly and record my
CLOCK-IN with underlying SQL:

Example:

INSERT INTO timestamps (timestamps_timestamp, timestamps_timestampstypes, timestamps_tasks) VALUES (current_timestamp, 3, 5);
INSERT 0 1

It inserted the timestamp for the task with the ID number 5, with the
type being ID numbe 3 or 'CLOCK-IN'. It selected `current_timestamp'
automatically. If necessary user could edit it in the same way how it
is edited in Org mode.

Table may be seen as:

SELECT * FROM timestamps;
-[ RECORD 1 ]--------------+------------------------------
timestamps_id              | 2
timestamps_datecreated     | 2020-11-29 09:55:52.715337
timestamps_datemodified    | 
timestamps_usercreated     | username
timestamps_usermodified    | username
timestamps_timestamp       | 2020-11-29 09:55:52.715337+01
timestamps_timestampstypes | 3
timestamps_tasks           | 5
timestamps_adminscaletasks | 
timestamps_hlinks          | 
timestamps_description     | 

If the entry is modified, the version information goes to version
control table. One can even know when was some entry modified and by
which user at what time. If description is modified it looks as:

SELECT * FROM timestamps;
-[ RECORD 1 ]--------------+--------------------------------------------------------
timestamps_id              | 2
timestamps_datecreated     | 2020-11-29 09:55:52.715337
timestamps_datemodified    | 2020-11-29 09:59:13.294634
timestamps_usercreated     | maddox
timestamps_usermodified    | maddox
timestamps_timestamp       | 2020-11-29 09:55:52.715337+01
timestamps_timestampstypes | 3
timestamps_tasks           | 5
timestamps_adminscaletasks | 
timestamps_hlinks          | 
timestamps_description     | That was clock-in as he finally arrived from Melbourne.

On my side I have various types of tasks:

- tasks, can be anything and related to anything
  
- adminscaletasks, for project planning, belong to project headings only
  
- hyperdocument tasks, more powerful than the above, as these can be
  of any type. Need not be text, and it can be action required
  (TODO). It can point to any database table, Org, Org heading, media
  files, any files, paper references, any PDF, annotation, task, note,
  just anything and are related to each other and related to other objects.

When those are excluded the above concept of tracking timestamps can
be simplified.

I am well aware that database handling of timestamps is not Org method
of handling timestamps. But it may become in future. And when I refer
to "database" I do not necessarily mean PostgreSQL database. It could
be LISP data, EIEIO objects, or any type of centralized structure
record.

By using this approach as database like PostgreSQL has so many good
built-in functions for date and time, efforts become lesser and
various reports and features become possible with a function of 3-4
lines:

- How long time was spent on each task. No need for parsing the
  table. I do not know how org-clock.el does it but I have looked
  inside and it looks hackish to parse the clock table.

- Which person have worked more or less, as tasks are usually related to people

- reliable multi user environment is automatically
  accessible. Multiple users could work on same tasks and CLOCK-IN,
  CLOCK-OUT. It becomes possible to track work of multiple people on
  one task. As that is how reality is, not one person is working on
  the task and not all people CLOCK-IN and CLOCK-OUT in the same time.

  But there is nothing to think about this, it is
  automatic. Concurrency is supported.

- collaborative text editing such as
  https://code.librehq.com/qhong/crdt.el.git may help users of a
  groupware to edit simultaneously tasks or notes.

- inner or underlying calculations need no special hacks. Database has
  many built-in handy functions for dates and times.

- no need any more to think of scalability and injecting clock table
  in front of people's eyes. While they can be hidden, they can be
  also ruined. It is important, valuable, structured information that
  should not be freely editable.

- tracking of who and when changed the DEADLINE or SCHEDULED date to a
  later date is automatically included.

User of a system is then left to do only:

- press key to clock-in, nothing need be visible, but can be opened to
  be visible by other key.

  Sending heading with its body to other user need not reveal its meta
  data. Heading remains empty. It becomes quite trivial to implement
  it for the present Org files. The only identificator should be the
  ID number that could be a tag. Identificator could be also the
  Heading but that is ambiguous, nevertheless could be heading in
  specific file to make things more simpler.

- press key to clock-out

- assign SCHEDULED/DEADLINE or other timestamps as needed.

- by press of a key, it can be all visible or it can all disappear
  completely. Meta data remains this way very stable in the database.

- all the reports become more human friendly.

And people like me can skip all the typing and too many complicated
keybindings and just use `t' for task related to person selected on
screen, `n' for note related to person selected, `i' to clock in, `o'
to clock out or `u' to undo. 
 
> All my tasks have basically the same format and are captured using
> the same capture template. when a clocktable report includes
> multiple files, there is a column which tells you which file the
> task is in (if you want it). The clocktable can use a single file,
> all files in your agenda, a list of files you specify, a subtree
> within a file etc.

Great work has been done and efforts that moved Org mode from plain
text editing into management of structured pieces of information. 

> When I was forced to generate gant charts etc, I actually used task
> juggler. There is a contrib library for it to make it work with org
> files. It is a bit dated now and probably needs to be
> 'refreshed'. There were a couple of irritating limitations which
> needed some hand tweaking of the generated task juggler files, but
> it worked pretty well.

I guess not many people are using gaant chart then. It was not usable
for me. I am not counting time, I am counting values. Values are then
automatically displayed on SVG/PNG/JPG files as statistics.

How many bread was baken in a week?

What quantity of minerals excavated?

Wheel barrows transported in a day? Day by day it makes the weekly
statistic, which makes monthly statistics.

By comparison one may find who is doing better and who is dodging.

Time without relation to some value to human is not of any use.

Jean

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jean Louis]

* daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-11-29 07:06]:
> That looks adequate at first, but what if you want the history for a project
> and gaant charts on how time was spent.  I mainly want it to figure out
> if jobs are worth stopping or changing.

Here are some references:

https://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/org-taskjuggler.html

https://github.com/swillner/org-gantt/blob/master/org-gantt-manual.org

https://github.com/swillner/org-gantt

For me, tracking of how time was spent is out of use. I am tracking
products or services delivered, something valuable produced and
real. As value is what I need. Time is environment where values are
produced and does not necessarily speak of values.

** TODO Project has several tasks which I keep rather in lists [0/3] [0%]
   :PROPERTIES:
   :ASSIGNED: James
   :END:

1) [ ] Purchase X equipment at ABC store.
  
2) [ ] bring X equipment to location XYZ and introduce yourself to technician

3) [ ] give the technical drawing to technician

Now if person assigned to do those tasks does not purchase equipment,
I would not like spending my time analyzing where the time went
because neither there is no value from not doing it, neither from me
analyzing. If tasks are in logical order then I know where the person
is stuck and we have both agreement as we know what is NEXT to be done
as tasks are numbered and even if not numbered they can be in
chronological order.

Count values, not time.

Jean

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jean Louis]

* Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> [2020-11-29 06:52]:
> I went down a similar route initially. In the end, found it was much
> better to define your capture templates to be generic i.e. not tied to a
> specific project, but rather based on what you are capturing and then
> use things like tags and properties (which you can have capture prompt
> for) to capture project specific information.
> 
> So I have the following capture templates
> 
> - TODO to capture basic tasks
> 
> - phone which I use to capture phone call information and track time.
>   Actually, although it is called phone, I use it for any meeting type
>   thing. I have to track time for billing purposes and need to record
>   date and time of call for tracking purposes

Thank you, nice to get insights into your organization.

I do not know which phone you use, maybe there is export option for
phone calls. Few Emacs Lisp functions can then automatically import
such data and assign to people by their phone number and make a table
of phone calls conducted. 

Some phone and applications offer to record every call. In the file
name there can be duration and begin of the phone call.

On Android there is termux tools where one can get history of phone
calls in automated manner. Those could spare some time.

> - Mail to track important emails. Adds a link to the original message (I
>   read email using mu4e).

I am using similar method. Sergey from GNU Mailutils have made me
small program `ef' that simply extracts email address. Then that email
address is used together with the subject to locate the person and
create quick task. I do that with F11 and do not think more than key
press. Email can be archived. Later I come to the task list.

> - Notes For capturing general note information
> 
> - Bookmarks - I have a bookmarks.org file where I keep links to
>   'interesting' things. Might be web sites, man pages, info pages etc.
> 
> - protocol capture - for org protocol capture handler e.g. capturing
>   info from web pages in chrome.

Just as you have several files so I do. Additionally tasks for
specific people are in their directories. I am accessing those very
fast just by thinking of a person, typing few query strings like "hap
nje" and locating right person in Emacs, press F4 and I have their Org
file in front of me. I have started using Org files after long period
of keeping tasks in the database. It was little quicker flow to write
Org task then to write database task. But this only because I was lazy
to accommodate myself. Out of laziness I have Org files with tasks
which I think should rather belong to centralized database as then
relations, tags, status, all the attributes become fixed and I need
not edit many things. I can still use Org mode just without files and
without error prone attributes.

> Many (not all) of the headings I refile under will add appropriate
> tags via the org tag inheritance process, which I use in various
> agenda views.

** Heading                                                            :QUICK:

*** New heading

that means that "New heading" has the tag :QUICK: even if not
specified. (info "(org) Tag Inheritance")

This may be useful to clarify for that use case when user wish to use
tags for maybe to do them today (one file), and maybe to keep them in
the main file as well. As that means one has to care.

There is also instruction in the Org manual how to turn off that
feature. To me personally that feature may be good to locate tags but
it would create more problems than solutions as the parent node could
be just a group name and individual tasks could be assigned to variety
of things.

It does make sense to use the parent's tags as automatically offered
tags for the subtree nodes. When making the subtree tags then parent's
tags could be right there for user just to press ENTER without
thinking. Various people have various use cases. When inheriting tags
one has to be more rigid in how to sort tasks.

Cherrytree - hierarchical note taking application with rich text and syntax highlighting
https://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/

The Cherrytree does have tags but is using also parent names as tags
when searching. In that sense I also use parent names.

If I have hierarchy FFMPEG / Concatenate, I would find
"Concatenate" by searching for FFMPEG.

Additionally FFMPEG could have tags tags such as VIDEO and if the tag
is also included in collection of candidates then "Concatenate" gets
found by using VIDEO.

> I have a few stored agenda searches and a couple of customised agenda
> views, plus I frequently make use of the tags to do ad hoc searches. I
> have also defined additional TODO states (TODO, NEXT, STARTED, HOLD,
> DELEGATED, CANCELLED and DONE). Some are setup to prompt for an
> additional note e.g. DELEGATED to let me specify who it is delegated to
> and HOLD to specify why it is on hold).

Currently I am researching "NEXT" and how people are thinking and
trying to see if I miss some concepts. My approach seem to be
simpler. There is project and there are tasks in their most logical
chronological or executable order just as a program. One has to do
first one, then next. Which one is next is clear from the order of
tasks. Marking it "NEXT" to me seem redundant as it would mean I have
not made good order.

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.

To me tags are classifying the task. While tags can also classify tags
to be action, tags do not represent type of the task, rather group or
groups where task belongs.

The type of the task such as TODO personally means action. Something
to do. If a heading would have type of TODO then all inherited
subtrees could automatically have type of TODO. I do not know if that
exists in the Org.

Personally I like all nodes to be individually characterized. They
belong to the parent, but the nodes can be anything. Parent heading
could indicate that subtree are nodes of actions (TODO), but among
those could be headings with text, articles, media that are not
TODO. As those could be helpful nodes for the subtree. And user could
by one key press choose those which have action assigned (TODO or other).

These thoughts are not related to you Tim, it is just personal opinion
on various approaches with the goal to enhance by brainstorming our
further organization.

Since several days, due to the brainstorming with other people I have
significantly improved personal organization.

The DELEGATED type, I have seen people using this and myself also. But
if something is fully delegated and not any more mine, then I would
not have it in my file. So it is something usually that I have to
think of. Many of the tasks I think of are already assigned, I could
call it delegated. And I keep property :ASSIGNED: under the Org
heading. When I wish to send this task, I press one key and it is
automatically sent to the person assigned. But I am one supervising it.

Because it is assigned it is not necessary personally to write
"DELEGATED". It is TODO, just obviously assigned. DELEGATED seem like
a subtype of a task to me. Additionally task may be assigned to
defined groups of people.

By using this approach one can assign tasks:

#+TITLE: My Org File
#+AUTHOR: Me
#+PROPERTY: ASSIGNED_ALL James Jane John Juda Mehdi

** TODO Negotiate with land owner

Now when one does {C-c C-x p} the minibuffer prompt asks for
"Property: " and there is ASSIGNED available as one of choices.

In the next step it asks user for ASSIGNED value, and there are
choices such as James Jane John Juda and Mehdi. Then it becomes like
this.

** TODO Negotiate with land owner
   :PROPERTIES:
   :ASSIGNED: Mehdi
   :END:

This way the major type TODO does not change, but one knows that it is
assigned or delegated to Mehdi.

Jean

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Ihor Radchenko]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> Currently I am researching "NEXT" and how people are thinking and
> trying to see if I miss some concepts. My approach seem to be
> simpler. There is project and there are tasks in their most logical
> chronological or executable order just as a program. One has to do
> first one, then next. Which one is next is clear from the order of
> tasks. Marking it "NEXT" to me seem redundant as it would mean I have
> not made good order.

NEXT is relevant to complex projects where multiple tasks can be active
at the same time. Or when some urgent tasks are added to the project as
it goes. Then, instead of constant reshuffling of the task order and
re-evaluating the order of tasks, one can simply mark the new urgent
tasks NEXT and later use sparse trees to only look at the tasks that
should be done at the current stage of the project. The key point is
minimising exposure to irrelevant information - the number of tasks in
large project can be demoralising, especially if one gets reminded about
it frequently.

You might also check
https://old.reddit.com/r/orgmode/comments/i4hx1z/gtd_problem_with_todo_workflowconstantly/g0ihg2d/ 

> 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.

That can be done. Should be trivial using org-edna
(http://www.nongnu.org/org-edna-el/), for example. Or you can use
org-trigger-hook and mark all the children with TODO keyword if the
parent heading is marked TODO.

> The DELEGATED type, I have seen people using this and myself also. But
> if something is fully delegated and not any more mine, then I would
> not have it in my file. So it is something usually that I have to
> think of. Many of the tasks I think of are already assigned, I could
> call it delegated. And I keep property :ASSIGNED: under the Org
> heading. When I wish to send this task, I press one key and it is
> automatically sent to the person assigned. But I am one supervising it.

I guess the key reason to have DELEGATED is just to be reminded to
followup on the progress.

> By using this approach one can assign tasks:
>
> #+TITLE: My Org File
> #+AUTHOR: Me
> #+PROPERTY: ASSIGNED_ALL James Jane John Juda Mehdi
>
> ** TODO Negotiate with land owner
>
> Now when one does {C-c C-x p} the minibuffer prompt asks for
> "Property: " and there is ASSIGNED available as one of choices.
>
> In the next step it asks user for ASSIGNED value, and there are
> choices such as James Jane John Juda and Mehdi. Then it becomes like
> this.
>
> ** TODO Negotiate with land owner
>    :PROPERTIES:
>    :ASSIGNED: Mehdi
>    :END:
>
> This way the major type TODO does not change, but one knows that it is
> assigned or delegated to Mehdi.

I would do it in an opposite manner - mark the task DELEGATED, which
triggers {C-c C-x p} and prompts me for the ASSIGNED value. The
advantage of my method is simply that it is easier to see later -
DELEGATED keyword is visible on the headline, which the PROPERTY drawer
is folded by default. Of course, it would not matter if you configure
org to not fold the PROPERTY drawers.

Best,
Ihor

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Tim Cross]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
>
>> Currently I am researching "NEXT" and how people are thinking and
>> trying to see if I miss some concepts. My approach seem to be
>> simpler. There is project and there are tasks in their most logical
>> chronological or executable order just as a program. One has to do
>> first one, then next. Which one is next is clear from the order of
>> tasks. Marking it "NEXT" to me seem redundant as it would mean I have
>> not made good order.
>
> NEXT is relevant to complex projects where multiple tasks can be active
> at the same time. Or when some urgent tasks are added to the project as
> it goes. Then, instead of constant reshuffling of the task order and
> re-evaluating the order of tasks, one can simply mark the new urgent
> tasks NEXT and later use sparse trees to only look at the tasks that
> should be done at the current stage of the project. The key point is
> minimising exposure to irrelevant information - the number of tasks in
> large project can be demoralising, especially if one gets reminded about
> it frequently.
>
> You might also check
> https://old.reddit.com/r/orgmode/comments/i4hx1z/gtd_problem_with_todo_workflowconstantly/g0ihg2d/
>

Exactly. Not all the tasks in my task list are related or have
dependencies between them. I use NEXT as part of my planning process.

>> 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 can be done. Should be trivial using org-edna
> (http://www.nongnu.org/org-edna-el/), for example. Or you can use
> org-trigger-hook and mark all the children with TODO keyword if the
> parent heading is marked TODO.
>

>> The DELEGATED type, I have seen people using this and myself also. But
>> if something is fully delegated and not any more mine, then I would
>> not have it in my file. So it is something usually that I have to
>> think of. Many of the tasks I think of are already assigned, I could
>> call it delegated. And I keep property :ASSIGNED: under the Org
>> heading. When I wish to send this task, I press one key and it is
>> automatically sent to the person assigned. But I am one supervising it.
>
> I guess the key reason to have DELEGATED is just to be reminded to
> followup on the progress.
>

Exactly. I don't just assign a task to someone and then forget about it.
I want to be reminded about which tasks have been delegated so that I
can follow up on them. Sometimes a delegated task is a dependency in
tasks which I have to do. I need to know when it is done in order to do
my task etc.

>> By using this approach one can assign tasks:
>>
>> #+TITLE: My Org File
>> #+AUTHOR: Me
>> #+PROPERTY: ASSIGNED_ALL James Jane John Juda Mehdi
>>
>> ** TODO Negotiate with land owner
>>
>> Now when one does {C-c C-x p} the minibuffer prompt asks for
>> "Property: " and there is ASSIGNED available as one of choices.
>>
>> In the next step it asks user for ASSIGNED value, and there are
>> choices such as James Jane John Juda and Mehdi. Then it becomes like
>> this.
>>
>> ** TODO Negotiate with land owner
>>    :PROPERTIES:
>>    :ASSIGNED: Mehdi
>>    :END:
>>
>> This way the major type TODO does not change, but one knows that it is
>> assigned or delegated to Mehdi.
>
> I would do it in an opposite manner - mark the task DELEGATED, which
> triggers {C-c C-x p} and prompts me for the ASSIGNED value. The
> advantage of my method is simply that it is easier to see later -
> DELEGATED keyword is visible on the headline, which the PROPERTY drawer
> is folded by default. Of course, it would not matter if you configure
> org to not fold the PROPERTY drawers.
>

nd this highlights the main benefit of org mode. There is no 'one right
way'. It is up to the user to decide how to best use it to meet their
requirements. For me, I want a text only, relatively simple system which
has minimal dependencies on anything else (such as a database). I want
to be able to copy all my org files onto a thumb drive or put them into
the cloud and know I can access/use them from anywhere where I can run
Emacs or if Emacs is unavailable, just a basic editor where I can
edit/update them as text.

--
Tim Cross

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jean Louis]

* 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.

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jean Louis]

* Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-11-29 15:25]:
> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> 
> > Currently I am researching "NEXT" and how people are thinking and
> > trying to see if I miss some concepts. My approach seem to be
> > simpler. There is project and there are tasks in their most logical
> > chronological or executable order just as a program. One has to do
> > first one, then next. Which one is next is clear from the order of
> > tasks. Marking it "NEXT" to me seem redundant as it would mean I have
> > not made good order.
> 
> NEXT is relevant to complex projects where multiple tasks can be active
> at the same time. Or when some urgent tasks are added to the project as
> it goes. Then, instead of constant reshuffling of the task order and
> re-evaluating the order of tasks, one can simply mark the new urgent
> tasks NEXT and later use sparse trees to only look at the tasks that
> should be done at the current stage of the project. The key point is
> minimising exposure to irrelevant information - the number of tasks in
> large project can be demoralising, especially if one gets reminded about
> it frequently.
> 
> You might also check
> https://old.reddit.com/r/orgmode/comments/i4hx1z/gtd_problem_with_todo_workflowconstantly/g0ihg2d/

,----
| So anything that is actionable is NEXT and anything that is depends on
| something else should be a TODO? That seems like most tasks are NEXT
| as opposed to TODO--intuitively, I would think most tasks should be
| TODO and moved to NEXT when they are to be worked on now. Or do you
| pluck from a large list of NEXT items and schedule them when you want
| to work on them?
| 
| The concept of NEXT tasks is most relevant to big projects. If, say,
| you have a project with 10 big tasks you need to do in order to
| complete the project, it is not very good idea to work on them at the
| same time. Instead, you only mark 1-2 tasks as NEXT to finish them
| first. Once you mark them DONE, the project will become stuck (no NEXT
| tasks), which will be seen during GTD review process. So, you will
| mark another 1-2 tasks as NEXT and continue working.
`----

From there I can understand that. We are doing that for projects but
we never assign NEXT.

Because TODO group of tags and DONE group of tags designate basically
something TO DO and something that is DONE and completed, then NEXT in
itself is basically TODO-NEXT. But some people are designated several
tasks as NEXT so that is contradictory to logic as only one should be
next according to me.

We write tasks in their most logical chronological order and every
staff member is instructed to follow the order. One simply cannot
drive a car without putting petrol first, so that system is
followed. Some tasks on the ground can be done without chronological
order and our staff members are left to decide on that. When they
arrive to town and need to buy timber, maybe carpenter is discovered
right there while the task says that once they arrive to village that
they should look for carpenter. What is NEXT is mostly practically
decided while doing things at my side.

> > 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.
> 
> That can be done. Should be trivial using org-edna
> (http://www.nongnu.org/org-edna-el/), for example. Or you can use
> org-trigger-hook and mark all the children with TODO keyword if the
> parent heading is marked TODO.

Interesting complication (Edna) that is supposed to be useful. Before
constructing the series of those tasks user would need to construct
series of tasks to construct series of tasks.

Concept is great: This task can be completed only when tasks 1, 4 and
7 are completed. But practical life is different. When conducting
projects staff members may discover on ground that dependable task can
be completed without 1, 4 and 7 being completed as one could not
predict future randomity. It may be also discovered that those 1, 4
and 7 are not true dependencies but some other tasks. This would imply
that planner must know very well future incidents which is rarely the
case as it would be so easy to predict future one would not be writing
tasks.

It is useful in trees and it should be an org built-in to mark all
children nodes with the tag. It becomes very trivial when using
database with nodes having a parent:

,----
| UPDATE hlinks SET hlinks_tags = 'TODO' WHERE hlinks_parent = THIS ONE;
`----

But rather a function would be used or type assigned. The above is
only example that shows how complex hard coded Elisp functions can be
replaced with 3-4 lines single function when database is a backend.

No wonder this guy has put Org mode in a sandwich on the logo of
SMOS. It eats the Org.

SMOS - A Comprehensive Self-Management System
https://smos.cs-syd.eu/features

> > The DELEGATED type, I have seen people using this and myself also. But
> > if something is fully delegated and not any more mine, then I would
> > not have it in my file. So it is something usually that I have to
> > think of. Many of the tasks I think of are already assigned, I could
> > call it delegated. And I keep property :ASSIGNED: under the Org
> > heading. When I wish to send this task, I press one key and it is
> > automatically sent to the person assigned. But I am one supervising it.
> 
> I guess the key reason to have DELEGATED is just to be reminded to
> followup on the progress.

Yes. And users may assign in their minds any kinds of meaning. They
are not clear.

Example is with NEXT, I would not use it as it becomes clear from good
plan what is next. It is DESCRIBED in our tasks what is next by
several words or sentences.

Just like when purchasing metal roof must come first before sleeping
in a cabin. They are though free to decide if they wish to sleep first
in the cabin and purchase the roof tomorrow, but I am not going to pay
a lodge if it is raining.

> I would do it in an opposite manner - mark the task DELEGATED, which
> triggers {C-c C-x p} and prompts me for the ASSIGNED value. The
> advantage of my method is simply that it is easier to see later -
> DELEGATED keyword is visible on the headline, which the PROPERTY drawer
> is folded by default. Of course, it would not matter if you configure
> org to not fold the PROPERTY drawers.

For me personally it does not matter as I am easily transitioning to
meta level assignments. Assignments or delegations I use very often,
always. Every day.

I like to press key `a', choose person, write assignment task and
close it. Finished there. Computer sends the task, SMS, and maybe even
follow up and reminders at specified intervals.

With Org definitely same can be done, it is just less relational, more
error prone. Of course I could designate a key to choose a person,
then write assignment task and press key to send it to person
assigned. I have that already.

Relational database approach gives me speedier access or better
overview without hassles. Additionally I can access tasks in the
database by any programming language not necessarily Emacs Lisp. It
can be just `psql' the command line tool to database. It could extract
the task by using email address of a person and attach the pending
list of tasks and date when they have been sent in the email (by
pressing key).

For the `fzf' command line tool that I discovered only recently I
would like to cry as I missed something like that for years. It is
like helm-mode on console.

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Ihor Radchenko]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> We write tasks in their most logical chronological order and every
> staff member is instructed to follow the order. One simply cannot
> drive a car without putting petrol first, so that system is
> followed. Some tasks on the ground can be done without chronological
> order and our staff members are left to decide on that. When they
> arrive to town and need to buy timber, maybe carpenter is discovered
> right there while the task says that once they arrive to village that
> they should look for carpenter. What is NEXT is mostly practically
> decided while doing things at my side.

But what if the road to village is blocked by weather conditions? Should
the staff members just stop doing the project and wait until the road
becomes accessible? That sounds not very efficient. If all the tasks
that one can start doing at current stage of the project are marked
NEXT, instead of waiting for the blocked tasks, one can simply choose
another NEXT task and get some progress on the project despite the first
tasks cannot be done at this moment.

> Interesting complication (Edna) that is supposed to be useful. Before
> constructing the series of those tasks user would need to construct
> series of tasks to construct series of tasks.
>
> Concept is great: This task can be completed only when tasks 1, 4 and
> 7 are completed. But practical life is different. When conducting
> projects staff members may discover on ground that dependable task can
> be completed without 1, 4 and 7 being completed as one could not
> predict future randomity. It may be also discovered that those 1, 4
> and 7 are not true dependencies but some other tasks. This would imply
> that planner must know very well future incidents which is rarely the
> case as it would be so easy to predict future one would not be writing
> tasks.

This can indeed be problem, especially if one tries to create too
detailed dependencies. However, some very standard procedures might
still benefit from this. For example, safety checklists might be the
case when such task dependencies do make sense. Both the checklist and
the dependency can be pre-defined as a capture template and then used in
different projects serving as a reminder for necessary actions.

I personally use very simple edna dependencies - when there is a book
series or a movie/documentary split into several series, I sometimes
block the later series until I watch earlier:

https://github.com/yantar92/emacs-config/blob/master/config.org#task-dependencies

In any case, I suggested this package simply as an example how to make
all subheadings become TODO as soon as one changes the parent to TODO
state. 

> It is useful in trees and it should be an org built-in to mark all
> children nodes with the tag. It becomes very trivial when using
> database with nodes having a parent:
>
> ,----
> | UPDATE hlinks SET hlinks_tags = 'TODO' WHERE hlinks_parent = THIS ONE;
> `----
>
> But rather a function would be used or type assigned. The above is
> only example that shows how complex hard coded Elisp functions can be
> replaced with 3-4 lines single function when database is a backend.

Why do you think that analogous Elisp function would be complex?

(defun yant/trigger-children (arg)
  "Change all the children to TODO when parent is TODO."
  (when (and (eq (plist-get arg :type) 'todo-state-change)
	     (not (boundp 'trigger-children-progress))
             (string= (plist-get arg :to) "TODO"))
    (let (trigger-children-progress)
      (org-map-tree (lambda () (org-todo "TODO"))))))
(add-hook 'org-trigger-hook #'yant/trigger-children)

> No wonder this guy has put Org mode in a sandwich on the logo of
> SMOS. It eats the Org.
>
> SMOS - A Comprehensive Self-Management System
> https://smos.cs-syd.eu/features

As for me, SMOS is too inflexible in comparison with org-mode. See https://old.reddit.com/r/orgmode/comments/ivlczu/smos_a_comprehensive_selfmanagement_tool/

Best,
Ihor

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jean Louis]

* Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-12-01 05:21]:
> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> 
> > We write tasks in their most logical chronological order and every
> > staff member is instructed to follow the order. One simply cannot
> > drive a car without putting petrol first, so that system is
> > followed. Some tasks on the ground can be done without chronological
> > order and our staff members are left to decide on that. When they
> > arrive to town and need to buy timber, maybe carpenter is discovered
> > right there while the task says that once they arrive to village that
> > they should look for carpenter. What is NEXT is mostly practically
> > decided while doing things at my side.
> 
> But what if the road to village is blocked by weather conditions? Should
> the staff members just stop doing the project and wait until the road
> becomes accessible? That sounds not very efficient. If all the tasks
> that one can start doing at current stage of the project are marked
> NEXT, instead of waiting for the blocked tasks, one can simply choose
> another NEXT task and get some progress on the project despite the first
> tasks cannot be done at this moment.

Just as you got a hunch, random incidents happen all the time on
ground. There is set of policies and staff members get trained to
apply them. For example our coordination policy is to pretty much
coordinate any reasonable action before, during and after
execution. If staff member is departing to village such will send a
message and we know what is the action of a staff member. If
supervisor is on computer such action can be entered in same central
file. Otherwise email list of staff member holds track of actions.

In that sense we help each other.

> Should the staff members just stop doing the project and wait until
> the road becomes accessible?

Actually I said contrary, we are problem solvers rather than
robots. Roads become accessible, we do not even speak of things that
have to be solved as it is self evident fact. While this case may
appear contradictory to you in real world people coordinate between
each other and help each other in real time.

Writing those smaller tasks on paper would be detrimental for a
project as more time would be spent to write the task or note the task
than to actually do it.

> If all the tasks that one can start doing at current stage of the
> project are marked NEXT, instead of waiting for the blocked tasks,
> one can simply choose another NEXT task and get some progress on the
> project despite the first tasks cannot be done at this moment.

After this discussion and review of how SMOS implemented NEXT and how
some people implement NEXT while doing their planning with Org mode,
I see that it will never be necessary on my side. Just never.

This is for reason that we use set of policies beforehand and train
people how to do projects. Number one is that person cannot start
doing any action without fully understanding all parts of the full
project. We expect person to be literate and capable at least in the
context of the project being executed. We push the purpose of the
project and reason, not the execution of single tasks. As purpose of
tasks are to achieve the purpose, person executing those tasks is
supposed to collaborate on the project and contribute to it. Executing
tasks is done by reason and not by robotic planning.

That should clearly answer why NEXT is completely redundant as in all
experience of years of planning, writing projects and assigning such
to people I have not even encountered a problem related to the subject
"NEXT" as used by people in Org planning:

- there is set of policies on how to train people for projects

- there is set of policies how to coordinate, communicate, report,
  including report on events

- plans have goals and purposes, projects fulfill one step of a plan,
  projects have its own purposes and tasks are there to complete a
  project

- any task becomes reasonably redundant if we have achieved the
  project target. Any project becomes redundant if plan's step or
  plan's purpose have been achieved. This is contradictory to
  robotic way of how Org have been programmed in relation to list
  items:

  - mark heading with TODO (let us say project purpose)
  - [ ] add TODO list items
  - only if all TODO list items are marked [X] the parent node can be
    marked as DONE

  That approach is contradictory to human logic of achieving things. I
  am not doing a single task for the single task's sake but for higher
  purpose and if higher purpose have been achieved, all those planned
  single tasks become reasonably redundant.

  I am using word "reasonably" as that involves human who decides
  about it and not robotic following of the tasks and executing them
  just because they may appear as not DONE.

- because we all get trained to use reason when handling tasks it is
  logical for the assignee to know what other task can be done within
  same section. It is completely redundant to mark tasks as NEXT and
  also not meaningful and confusing.

  Definition of "NEXT" is:

  1. (0) following, next -- (immediately following in time or order;
  "the following day"; "next in line"; "the next president"; "the next
  item on the list")

  And that implies to me and my personal logic that there cannot be
  more than 1 NEXT task to do. Marking multiple tasks as NEXT is
  contradictory to logic. I can understand it. But I cannot impose
  such logic onto other people reading it on paper as it contradicts
  to the its literate meaning.

  Meaning in the Org mode context is also pretty much idiosyncratic as
  each person may have slightly or substantially different
  consideration how to apply those action related tags or flags.

- When an assignee is reading the project all of the project is
  written in logical chronological order.

- Set of policies and training ensures that assignees are deciding
  themselves on what next task can be done, so we all do it this
  way. But marking or flagging tasks as "NEXT" is redundant as that
  would mean we would be dealing with robots and not with people. It
  seem to me like a low level programming without any intelligence.

When person really lacks some intelligence or is sent few first times
on a project, then more chunked chronological style is used:

1. [ ] Read this project and clarify all matters in headquarter before
   departing.

2. [ ] Make sure to eat and drink before the travel, what you can do
   in the city.

3. [ ] Call Magdalena and tell her you are coming to take 2 samples
   and to review the mining sites. Ask her if she can assist.

4. [ ] Find out from Magdalena how are you going to arrive from Kahama
   to the village, write information down.

5. [ ] Depart from headquarter.

6. [ ] On departure, send communication that you have just departed.

7. [ ] On any accident on the road, or event, during the travel, send
   communication of what is happening.

8. [ ] On arrival to Kahama, send communication that you have arrived.

9. [ ] Arrive to Kahama.

10. [ ] On meeting with Magdalena send communication that you met
    Magdalena and where you are located.

11. [ ] Travel to the processing site. Send communication that you
    arrived to processing site.

When person is trained satisfactorily then various reporting events
need not be written in the project as that is policy that is
implemented at all times and is named "Reporting on events".

- Projects have collaborative nature. Only if people know each other
  already well it may be advisable to write projects without much
  collaboration with other people or assignees. Org mode is by its
  nature more personal as there are no implementations for
  collaboration. In reality, when writing projects it is better to
  write such together with assignees as one is going on the ground to
  execute projects and other one is planning, but planning without both
  minds collaborating together is detrimental. Personally is good, but
  when two and more minds are involved in execution of projects then
  they shall at least be asked for opinions during the stage when
  project has to be understood before its execution. And their
  opinions may become part of the project.

- Tasks in a project cannot be distributed over different
  projects. While this is established as a policy I have never written
  it down because it was always established.

  On computer one can have many personal files distributed over many
  different Org files or other systems of keeping them. Then people
  use Agenda to find what is next to be executed. This may work well
  for one type of tasks, for example for group of tasks such as "Visit
  dentist", "Polish nails", "Go to cinema with Joe"; in general where
  each such task has purpose for itself but is not part of one whole.

  When a task is part of some higher order or higher purpose, then
  other tasks must be excluded as that becomes evasion or dodging. I
  can think how many Org mode users procrastinate what they really
  need with justifications of "doing something else" because "it is
  written in my agenda" as "my computer calculated it".

  There is a serious misconception that people face automatically when
  working with computer where things go into direction where they
  would not go if one would work with papers.

  When preparing a project on paper for example to negotiate a deal
  and assigning that project to person then person is "on the project"
  or "on the mission" and there is nothing else to think of.

  I am using this definition:

  3. (8) mission, charge, commission -- (a special assignment that is
  given to a person or group; "a confidential mission to London"; "his
  charge was deliver a message")

  Person assigned on a project is not supposed and maybe not allowed,
  and not directed to consider any list from any "agenda". Person does
  project steps and does not do "other tasks" or other project
  steps. It does not matter if maybe other task is scheduled for today
  or similar, everything is postponed and there is no need to think of
  it as person accepted to do the project and postpones automatically
  everything else. Attributes, tags, properties, all that becomes in
  reality meaningless.

That is reason.

What is not reason is to have unreasonable files of allegedly ordered
tasks which are in reality not ordered and proof for that is that
org-agenda exists in the first place. People do not keep their
projects and tasks in ordered manner and they need org-agenda.

That is why I almost never used org-agenda in last 5 years.

All my projects have been ordered logically and separated into
files. Files are named by projects. For example "Short Term
Prospecting Project" where person goes into nature and does some
activities of prospecting for minerals.

Higher order plan says among many other plan steps that person has to
be sent on "Short Term Prospecting Project". That is where project is
taken as such, printed and executed. It is executed on the
paper. Person checks out with signature and date that task has been
executed. Supervisor on distance could check it out in Org file. If
there is no supervisor, the project paper becomes its own
report. Report notes are written on the same project paper and full
report may be on the end. When finalized planner looks if project has
achieved its purpose or maybe need more work. Plan step is finished.

One person can be assigned to one project, other to other project.

Browsing through "agenda" for that would be detrimental and time waste
as project tasks are simply logically and chronologically ordered.

Both the assignee and assignor know, due to nature of project
planning, what is next. Neither of them is browsing to see what "could
be next" as both of them, the supervisor and people on ground, keep
same information in front of them and they can see what is checked out
as DONE and what else is may be reasonably and logically next to be
done.

I have no meaningless Org files. Files may be named as
How-to-place-posters-project.org and are usually one part of a bigger
plan and are usually exported from a section of a bigger plan (Org
file).

Several staff members have already executed
How-to-place-posters-project.org with success, have been earning money
and we have been all benefiting from that project.

Plans and projects on my side are programmed as in this definition:

The noun program has 8 senses (first 4 from tagged texts)

1. (106) plan, program, programme -- (a series of steps to be carried
out or goals to be accomplished; "they drew up a six-step plan"; "they
discussed plans for a new bond issue")

For that reason many various methods of how other people use Org mode
are redundant. NEXT is redundant. Searching through Agenda is
redundant for me.

What makes sense on my side is keeping track of following:

- which plan is currently ongoing?

  - what plan step are we on?

  - is the step too difficult that requires project planning?

  - if yes, what is the next project step to do?

  - supervise and help or execute the next project step

Practically if person works from day to day, there is nothing to be
asked as all above questions are known and project step is in front of
person's face either on paper or computer. There is no repetitive
rehearsing on what is next to be done and there is no searching for
accidentally distributed unrelated tasks in various other files not
ordered in this manner.

Because sometimes I am supervising people in several different
countries at once, then my personal set of tasks for a day is like
this:

- begin day by contacting all relevant people, greeting them, making
  sure they are all ready, coordinate and collaborate

- it is already known which people work on which project. We both know
  in the same time what is next. Marking anything as "next" at that
  point would be redundant. We may discuss maybe how to solve things.

- communication lines are kept and that step after step is executed
  while we are collaborating.

That way I can accomplish few different sets of projects in few
different countries on distance. Nobody is confused there. None of us
is searching through agenda as it is not relevant to search but do
what is written due to chronological and logical order of assignments.

While doing projects for business and humanitarian projects I have me
personal projects. In general I do not need to supervise people in
real time as they all report on the end of the day. That is where we
collaborate for tomorrow. After collaboration of some minutes I am
again free personally. 

org-agenda may be useful but it is on bottom of things, not on top of
things. Tasks in such planning do not belong anywhere, they are
distributed among files that are named any how where people do not
have any real method of sorting them. org-agenda will show then
anything, from personal tasks to business tasks, recreational, family
tasks or anything together and it does not make sense to me.

To be on top of things means to supervise things from higher
level. Think of countries and people involved. Because those people
are on different plans and projects that set of people makes a daily
list of tasks:

- Peter in Kenya, project on legalities, it is clear in the project
  what has to be done next. No agenda searching when it is already
  clear to both of us. It was written or collaborated and written in
  advance. Org file has been sent.

- Dean in Kenya, project of a service for client, it is clear what is
  next because it was written or because it was updated by
  collaboration from yesterday.

- Laurence in Tanzania, that is different project, same thing as
  above.

Higher planning comes first. Once planned, written, set on paper,
printed, I am not any more rehearsing those elementary tasks on paper
or on computer, they have been already written with practical
viewpoint, can be executed and are all useful. There is no need for me
to go through tasks again ever to see what is TODO, for example,
because it is already known. I am thinking of PROJECT ABC. I am not
thinking of TASK 42. No need to access on daily, hourly basis, or
rehearse tasks because it is usually already known and if maybe
forgotten or not memorized just open PROJECT ABC and see what it
is. I hope it is clear what means to work from top to bottom.

Working on Org file means working from bottom to top:

- make tasks, little here, little there, organize maybe by some
  groups, make this or that file, search through agenda because I have
  not ordered anything how it should be. Think of task first because
  it is scheduled for its own sake of being scheduled. Do the task
  because it is task and not part of one higher purpose. Mark flag,
  add properties, tag them to be able to search them.

The Org way of doing things is organizing procrastination with more
and more increasing complexities that are allegedly supposed to make
life easier.

Please do not stone me.

Humanity exists way longer than computers, and Org mode, planning
methods existed for thousands of years, and great projects have been
accomplished without any papers being invented at the time.

Human mind is capable of doing anything with or without
computer. There is plethora of people who live happy lives, accomplish
and finish all of their obligations and tasks of life, and do not use
neither computers neither papers.

Thus in my opinion there shall be less TODOs:

- Plan A, maybe related to business
- Plan B, maybe related to children
- Plan C, maybe related to house building, COMPLETED

Daily or weekly agenda should be the top level of a tree of things to
be done. It should be clear that in those hierachies all steps are
chronological and logical. What is arranged by time need not
necessarily be arranged by logic, so it is better using both terms
together.

Then the subtree of hierarchy need not be marked ever with TODO as it
should be clear that it is TODO. One can have nice markings, but one
should not allow something that is ACTION TO DO to be marked as NOT
ACTION TO DO, as that makes file editing error prone for project
planning. It is easy to do shift arrow left or right and to change
TODO to non-TODO and maybe even forget about it. If the task is sorted
under Project, such has to be done, if Project is under Plan it has to
be done.

One can mark tasks done as COMPLETED. Often this requires DATE, TIME
and SIGNATURE.

But marking project step with TODO when it is obviously sorted as
something to be done is not necessary.

Here is structure of a project, as part of bigger plan. Projects can
be structured any how on my side. When assigned to other people there
are sections of introduction:

1 Primary principle for reading ;; explains to people not to skip misunderstoods
2 Primary principle for communication ;; that we shall collaborate, etc.
3 Definitions of words ;; defines terms related to project
4 About company
5 Goal of the project ;; known objective, actions are done to achieve
                         the goal and it has clear quote
6 Purpose of the project ;; A purpose is a lesser goal applying to
                            specific activities or the sujects. It
			    often expresses future intentions
7 Requirements for this project ;; no moving to "TODO" without it!
8 How to do this project ;; explains how to conduct project, reason,
                            logic, collaboration is all here
9 How to report        
10 How to report on events
11 How to make pictures
12 Communication requirements [0/16] 
13 Personal introduction
14 Project steps            ;; this is where operational targets are defined
15 Awards

Project steps can be also related to various other objects such as
notes, videos, images, WWW hyperlinks, that is why now HyperScope is
to encompass that all.

A task type of heading marked as TODO in Org mode editing may be
related to other hyperdocuments such as images, text files, In Org
file we make hyperlinks to such rather external objects. If we start
placing them inside of Org file a single task becomes messy. We still
need such objects but not in a way to disturb execution of tasks. Such
objects are useful in preparations of projects, programs or plans for
each person to have references and to gain more understanding.

> > Concept is great: This task can be completed only when tasks 1, 4 and
> > 7 are completed. But practical life is different. When conducting
> > projects staff members may discover on ground that dependable task can
> > be completed without 1, 4 and 7 being completed as one could not
> > predict future random events. It may be also discovered that those 1, 4
> > and 7 are not true dependencies but some other tasks. This would imply
> > that planner must know very well future incidents which is rarely the
> > case as it would be so easy to predict future one would not be writing
> > tasks.
> 
> This can indeed be problem, especially if one tries to create too
> detailed dependencies. However, some very standard procedures might
> still benefit from this. For example, safety checklists might be the
> case when such task dependencies do make sense. Both the checklist and
> the dependency can be pre-defined as a capture template and then used in
> different projects serving as a reminder for necessary actions.

That is right. That is how I am planning everything. Not as
incidentally distributed tasks that I need to search with agenda but
everything is sorted into lists. From the list itself is clear that it
is action list. I am reusing those lists many times.

When you say "safety checklist" you are telling about senior element
such as purpose which is in this case safety and subordinate elements
which are elementary check list items.

There are those tasks which are scattered and Org file gathers them
all in Org agenda. So it tries to look through into the result of
organizing of procrastination. It may as well be that many Org users
do not have well defined senior purposes for those tasks and that many
tasks are not sorted in chronological and logical order. Then in
addition they are distributed in various files with file names not by
by its structure related to anyting in file systems that is also not
well ordered in itself and not related to anything in particular as
structured data.

Person can be collecting and gathering files on desktop in to somebody
else very messy way. But person doing it may have developed mind
mechanism to know where is what without using any particular system of
organization. All relations are kept in the mind. Putting structre
from the mind into computer brings organization that become capable of
collaboration.

Everything is related to everything in real world. We do relational
associations by using our mind. We just do not have adequate tools to
implement our mind association into our stored computer data.

But if we DO put attention that our computer data is logically related
to each other and well structured at that point there is no need for
organizing the mess as we then made one steap ahead for mess not to
appear in the first place.

That is why I say that Org editing is organizing of
procrastination. Some users will be doing it efficiently, but Org
agenda and tools developed for agenda show that demand is rather to
organize the creation of huge procrastination.

If things are well organized from ground up then agenda becomes
redundant.

Organized implies to me to know what is next to be done.

Unorganized person does not know what is next to be done. That is why
Org agenda is there. Because tasks are scattered, not organized.

> I personally use very simple edna dependencies - when there is a book
> series or a movie/documentary split into several series, I sometimes
> block the later series until I watch earlier:
> 
> https://github.com/yantar92/emacs-config/blob/master/config.org#task-dependencies
> 
> In any case, I suggested this package simply as an example how to make
> all subheadings become TODO as soon as one changes the parent to TODO
> state.

When looking into the real life beyond Org mode organizing, we may
find planners and administrators on much higher level unbelievable
organized that cannot compare to anything we are doing here. There are
cities on this planet well organized where administration even if
replaced with new people continues the plans that have been determined
decades ago. I do not believe they use Org, neither that they need
even to use any computers. Before the era of computers cities have
been planned and projects implemented and executed and nobody was
putting silly marks such as TODO. It should be clear from heading and
location of heading in overall structure that it is to be executed. If
it is not clear, something is generally wrong from ground up.

How did Chinese make the Great Wall without Org mode? How did they
bring the Statue of Liberty from France to New York and organized a
project?

Does military use TODO marks in their planning? I do not believe so,
it would look childish as their plans are already well chronologically
and logically structured that TODO, NEXT, etc. becomes redundant.

Each planning methodology requires something names goals or purposes
or objectives or targets and anything that has to be executed belong
to such goals. In military they will call them objectives. Myself I do
not approve of any wars neither military preparations, human animal is
crazy. But military planning methodology does not involve any random
searches over bunch of scattered tasks and data to find out what is
scheduled, etc. Army, marines, government officers in many countries
have methodology of planning that may be paper based or computer based
and outperforms any type of discussed Org established ways of
gathering the scattered.

Reference:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/19-4/Ch16.htm

,----
| Use the military planning and decision-making process.
`----

Org does not teach us about that. It tries to provide something from
elementary programming features, but not from top to bottom.

,----
| Develop long-range as well as short-range goals.
`----

This may be most important in any planning. Why are you doing what you
are doing? Is there maybe somethin else what you should be doing? It
is fine that one schedules visit to cinema with friends, but bills
will not be paid from tagging TODO on Cinema and spending wrong day
for activity that fits maybe in different week.

Thinking on long-range goal helps in determining short-range goals,
which help in determining which projects or tasks are to be executed.

Org mode has headings and hierarchy and established ways for people to
order their goals, projects, tasks, but it is not what people are
doing, because there is no form structure in Org mode to tell where
something is allowed to be ordered and where not.

That is why heading need its type. Type may be assigned by human
mind. But that is error prone. It is not suitable for collaborative
access as then one among the group could change PLAN type to be NOTE
without asking others or collaborating on that. Nobody would knew
it. Org agenda would not find that it is plan.

Heading with its type should not accept node that belongs somewhere
else. One cannot put family stuff and purchase of plastic swimming
pool for children under the submarine supervision plan run for
government.

They mention all times objectives, purposes goals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts

Tasks have to be aligned to objectives, goals or purposes.

Org file better be aligned to its purpose or objective.

Headings shall belong to its senior heading.

In Org we do not have unlimited possibilities or it start to look very
funny. Org export to PDF is very fine and I mostly use it. But direct
LaTeX is more suitable for planning and better structured output. Org
mode tries to be glue for everything and has to degrade some
functionalities to make it easier and right for many users.

,----
| Identify your goals and objectives and the end point by which you will
| recognize their accomplishment.
| 
| Coordinate goals and actions internally and externally.
`----

That says a lot. Actions are those which we make as TODO. Are they
well coordinated with goals and objectives? If they are why are we
marking them with TODO as such? If they are coordinated and aligned
why we search for such with agenda?

,----
| Base your plans on objective planning factors.
`----

While each individual can do that in an Org file there is no structure
that teaches user how to do that. If Org planning would be done by
specific structure, at least templates to better organize. Organizing
actions means organizing it from top to bottom, from goals down to
single elementary steps that are executed with purpose to achive
goals. 

> > children nodes with the tag. It becomes very trivial when using
> > database with nodes having a parent:
> >
> > ,----
> > | UPDATE hlinks SET hlinks_tags = 'TODO' WHERE hlinks_parent = THIS ONE;
> > `----
> >
> > But rather a function would be used or type assigned. The above is
> > only example that shows how complex hard coded Elisp functions can be
> > replaced with 3-4 lines single function when database is a backend.
> 
> Why do you think that analogous Elisp function would be complex?
> 
> (defun yant/trigger-children (arg)
>   "Change all the children to TODO when parent is TODO."
>   (when (and (eq (plist-get arg :type) 'todo-state-change)
> 	     (not (boundp 'trigger-children-progress))
>              (string= (plist-get arg :to) "TODO"))
>     (let (trigger-children-progress)
>       (org-map-tree (lambda () (org-todo "TODO"))))))
> (add-hook 'org-trigger-hook #'yant/trigger-children)

Good for you, good for me. But not good as a product for people who
are not programmers. 

> > No wonder this guy has put Org mode in a sandwich on the logo of
> > SMOS. It eats the Org.
> >
> > SMOS - A Comprehensive Self-Management System
> > https://smos.cs-syd.eu/features
> 
> As for me, SMOS is too inflexible in comparison with org-mode. See
> https://old.reddit.com/r/orgmode/comments/ivlczu/smos_a_comprehensive_selfmanagement_tool/

It has defined machine parsable structure that may be used by any
programming language. It probably allows future or present
collaboration as it has server and client model. I have not verified
it. When it is so it allows for collaboration.

Org mode wants to become something that it is not. Gathering the
scattered. Being database while being plain text. Assigning built-in
relations while they do not exist. Organizing procrastination.

See CRM system like SugarCE Community Edition, it is free software:
https://s1.demo.opensourcecms.com/s/42

You will see how tasks can be created and they are structured by
foundational design:

- task may be related to person in structured database

- task may be related to account or company, bug, case, opportunity,
  etc. which all in turn could be related to contact, company, etc. 
  
- task can be assigned to person, there are scheduled dates and
  deadlines and there is also ability to expand structure with fields
  how one wants it.

In my opinion there is much to learn from there.

Task management with Org is limited to Emacs. It does not have some
centralized engine that could be used by other editors, but it should
have. At least it could expose its tasks for collaboration by using
export methods.

Even nvi editor could use external command to insert or update
specific part of a text. That would be more useful for
collaboration.

Maybe something similar to taskwarrior external program glued to Org
mode could handle better tasks and minimize hard coding and
reinventing the wheel.

With the central, outside engine for tasks then it would enable
collaboration. It could be editable from Org mode, but using external
engine.

Then users with any editor could access tasks and project
management. Web interface becomes possible. Collaboration opens.

There are many various free software task management programs from
where Org users could learn from:
https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted#task-managementto-do-lists

Majority of them have structured foundation.

Jean

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Ihor Radchenko]

Dear Jean Louis,

Thank you for the detailed insight into your extensive experience of
project management and practical planning. I do not have that much
experience, but can provide a significantly different point of view
related to my research work.

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> * Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-12-01 05:21]:
>> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
>
> Just as you got a hunch, random incidents happen all the time on
> ground. There is set of policies and staff members get trained to
> apply them. For example our coordination policy is to pretty much
> coordinate any reasonable action before, during and after
> execution. If staff member is departing to village such will send a
> message and we know what is the action of a staff member. If
> supervisor is on computer such action can be entered in same central
> file. Otherwise email list of staff member holds track of actions.
>
> In that sense we help each other.

Thanks for providing an example. I do agree that the management model
you are using for your job fits into defining projects rather strictly
and delegating the planning/non-trivial decision making to competent
people. In such a context, ordered project plans with a single action at
a time and each employee assigned to a single project do make a lot of
sense. However, different perspectives do exist.

My personal experience is doing a lot of research work. That's probably
on the other side of the spectrum from the environment you are working
in. I cannot define very concrete steps to execute a research project.
Not because it is impossible, but rather because failures are pretty
much guaranteed far before all the steps are executed. Moreover, most of
time, it is not possible to consult someone else on resolution of the
problem causing blockage, simply because the problem is something that
never ever appeared in the past (that's the whole point of doing
research). Instead, I need to spend a significant time trying to find
*similar* problems digging through literature, talking to people working
on related problems, or even just thinking. Then, waiting until the
solution appears becomes a waste of time (there is even no guarantee
that solution exists) - if there are other alternative approaches to
achieve the global project objective, they would better be tried before
the blockage in one particular direction in solved. In fact, switching
to alternative approaches (or even projects) sometimes help to look at
the problem from different angle and solve it. The described difficulty
is *underestimation* of what can happen - even the initial project
objectives can be changed according to the current research results.
Trying to stick to a strict project structure in such a situation is a
waste of time - project must be re-created from scratch very too often,
unless it is more flexible from the very beginning.

In fact, the situation does not apply to a single project. The whole
project can be stuck and it is often helpful to have multiple projects
that can be done (though it is necessary to stick to highest-priority
project when possible).

The described situation is where NEXT tasks/projects can become
extremely helpful. Multiple NEXT tasks do not mean that I need to look
at them every day and switch from one to another. There are NEXT tasks
and there are NEXT tasks that are actually scheduled on specific day.
One day cannot have more than several (ideally one) NEXT task (possibly
containing a checklist). That's where agenda comes handy. It is not used
to decide what to do during that day. It merely shows earlier decision
when planning which project (and corresponding doable NEXT task) to do
on specific day. Other items in agenda are things that must be done on
that day anyway (meetings, mandatory habits, etc). Polluting agenda with
unnecessary staff is no better than mindless browsing of youtube.

> After this discussion and review of how SMOS implemented NEXT and how
> some people implement NEXT while doing their planning with Org mode,
> I see that it will never be necessary on my side. Just never.
>
> This is for reason that we use set of policies beforehand and train
> people how to do projects. Number one is that person cannot start
> doing any action without fully understanding all parts of the full
> project. We expect person to be literate and capable at least in the
> context of the project being executed. We push the purpose of the
> project and reason, not the execution of single tasks. As purpose of
> tasks are to achieve the purpose, person executing those tasks is
> supposed to collaborate on the project and contribute to it. Executing
> tasks is done by reason and not by robotic planning.

> ...

> That should clearly answer why NEXT is completely redundant as in all
> experience of years of planning, writing projects and assigning such
> to people I have not even encountered a problem related to the subject
> "NEXT" as used by people in Org planning:
>
> - there is set of policies on how to train people for projects
>
> - there is set of policies how to coordinate, communicate, report,
>   including report on events
>
> - plans have goals and purposes, projects fulfill one step of a plan,
>   projects have its own purposes and tasks are there to complete a
>   project

> ...

I hope I described my use-case sufficiently to show the difference with
your situation. For research, "fully understanding all parts of the full
project" means that project is pretty much completed and there is no
need to look further except maybe writing reports.

As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of NEXT items is not for daily use.
That's where scheduling can be used (at least, in my workflow). The
purpose of NEXT items is making project review easier - they are mainly
needed to provide hints on decision how to proceed with a blocked
project. As you mentioned, this is useless when project steps are
well-defined and little trouble is expected during execution.

> - any task becomes reasonably redundant if we have achieved the
>   project target. Any project becomes redundant if plan's step or
>   plan's purpose have been achieved. This is contradictory to
>   robotic way of how Org have been programmed in relation to list
>   items:
>
>   - mark heading with TODO (let us say project purpose)
>   - [ ] add TODO list items
>   - only if all TODO list items are marked [X] the parent node can be
>     marked as DONE
>
>   That approach is contradictory to human logic of achieving things. I
>   am not doing a single task for the single task's sake but for higher
>   purpose and if higher purpose have been achieved, all those planned
>   single tasks become reasonably redundant.

If target is flexible (like in research), extra TODO items can be useful
as a reminder what else might be done. Also, note that org-mode does not
strictly force todo dependencies. One can always force unconditional
todo state change with C-u C-u C-u C-c C-t (or by setting
org-enforce-todo-dependencies and
org-enforce-todo-checkbox-dependencies).

>   I am using word "reasonably" as that involves human who decides
>   about it and not robotic following of the tasks and executing them
>   just because they may appear as not DONE.

I look at it from different perspective. Task dependency is forcing me
to double-check the tasks not marked done and explicitly thinking if I
need to do them and improve the project (remember, there is no
well-defined project goal for me - things can always be improved, unless
there is time limit). If I decide to not do the not-done task (by
actively thinking, not by mindlessly marking project done just because I
think the goals are nominally achieved), I just mark the task CANCELLED
(which is a type of "done" keywords in org terminology). At the end,
task dependency allows to double-check for any missing ideas I could
forget about.

> What is not reason is to have unreasonable files of allegedly ordered
> tasks which are in reality not ordered and proof for that is that
> org-agenda exists in the first place. People do not keep their
> projects and tasks in ordered manner and they need org-agenda.
>
> That is why I almost never used org-agenda in last 5 years.

While reading your examples about why org-mode is often promoting
procrastination and messed up organisation, I feel that you expect more
from org-mode than it is.

You provided examples that people used their brains instead of computers
and paper instead of files in the past and successfully managed complex
projects. I would like to point out that org-mode to organisation and
project management is just like pen and paper to project management and
organisation. It is easy to have paper notes scattered all around the
office, home, and half of them lost somewhere. Same in org-mode, and you
provided enough examples. One needs to have a proper mindset and
established workflows to manage real projects with pen and papers. I
think about org-mode as about improved pen and paper - with proper
workflows and organisation it can be very efficient; without
organisation - it's just a digital mess, worse than some computer
desktops. org-mode provides a set of instruments - they can be used in
vastly different project management styles, some are more suitable to
specific styles, some are less suitable. As you mentioned, org-agenda is
not suitable for your style. It can be much better for others.

> org-agenda may be useful but it is on bottom of things, not on top of
> things. Tasks in such planning do not belong anywhere, they are
> distributed among files that are named any how where people do not
> have any real method of sorting them. org-agenda will show then
> anything, from personal tasks to business tasks, recreational, family
> tasks or anything together and it does not make sense to me.

While agenda can certainly show such kind of mix, it is indeed very
inefficient use of this tool. If other readers of this thread are
interested in better practices on using agenda, I recommend what is
recommended in [1]. It is absolutely crucial to keep daily agenda as
small as possible - only tasks that must be done on that day *and in the
location context* should be shown. Mixture of home and work tasks must
not happen. I knew this when I just started playing around with GTD, and
I thought that it is not important. After years of experience, I have to
say, that the rules about agenda are determinal to finishing work that
matters.

[1] Allen David [2015] Getting things done : the art of stress-free productivity

> Working on Org file means working from bottom to top:
>
> - make tasks, little here, little there, organize maybe by some
>   groups, make this or that file, search through agenda because I have
>   not ordered anything how it should be. Think of task first because
>   it is scheduled for its own sake of being scheduled. Do the task
>   because it is task and not part of one higher purpose. Mark flag,
>   add properties, tag them to be able to search them.
>
> The Org way of doing things is organizing procrastination with more
> and more increasing complexities that are allegedly supposed to make
> life easier.
>
> Please do not stone me.

While one can work with org file the way you described, it is not
necessary (and should not be done most of the time). High-level planning
is very important. It can be ignored to capture ideas in the middle of
doing something else, but those captured ideas should be thought about
in context of the whole project and placed into (or discarded from) the
project according to top-level objectives.

> Here is structure of a project, as part of bigger plan. Projects can
> be structured any how on my side. When assigned to other people there
> are sections of introduction:
>
> 1 Primary principle for reading ;; explains to people not to skip misunderstoods
> 2 Primary principle for communication ;; that we shall collaborate, etc.
> 3 Definitions of words ;; defines terms related to project
> 4 About company
> 5 Goal of the project ;; known objective, actions are done to achieve
>                          the goal and it has clear quote
> 6 Purpose of the project ;; A purpose is a lesser goal applying to
>                             specific activities or the sujects. It
> 			    often expresses future intentions
> 7 Requirements for this project ;; no moving to "TODO" without it!
> 8 How to do this project ;; explains how to conduct project, reason,
>                             logic, collaboration is all here
> 9 How to report        
> 10 How to report on events
> 11 How to make pictures
> 12 Communication requirements [0/16] 
> 13 Personal introduction
> 14 Project steps            ;; this is where operational targets are defined
> 15 Awards

Note: This project template is fairly similar to what is recommended by
Allen David, except reporting and communication. I lack experience of
large collaborations, so cannot elaborate much on this part.

> If things are well organized from ground up then agenda becomes
> redundant.
>
> Organized implies to me to know what is next to be done.
>
> Unorganized person does not know what is next to be done. That is why
> Org agenda is there. Because tasks are scattered, not organized.

Agenda cannot help unorganised person. Similarly with a paper (or paper
calendar) that cannot help unorganised person. However, either calendar
or agenda can be used efficiently as tools helping organisation (when
they are suitable for the specific situation).

> Org mode has headings and hierarchy and established ways for people to
> order their goals, projects, tasks, but it is not what people are
> doing, because there is no form structure in Org mode to tell where
> something is allowed to be ordered and where not.

Well-organised person would not need computer to keep records in
relational database - even a simple paper would do if used properly [2].
org-mode provides such tools, but org-mode does not teach or enforce
organisation. The cost of being flexible is possibility to misuse. The
power of being flexible is possibility to use much more efficiently than
more restricted tools.

[2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NfdHG6oHBJ8Qxc26s/the-zettelkasten-method-1

> Each planning methodology requires something names goals or purposes
> or objectives or targets and anything that has to be executed belong
> to such goals. In military they will call them objectives. Myself I do
> not approve of any wars neither military preparations, human animal is
> crazy. But military planning methodology does not involve any random
> searches over bunch of scattered tasks and data to find out what is
> scheduled, etc. Army, marines, government officers in many countries
> have methodology of planning that may be paper based or computer based
> and outperforms any type of discussed Org established ways of
> gathering the scattered.
>
> Thinking on long-range goal helps in determining short-range goals,
> which help in determining which projects or tasks are to be executed.

One can also refer to GTD methodology, which is more about long-term
goals than about individual task - the point many people miss. (Search
for GTD: Purpose, vision, goals, and areas of responsibility + weekly
review).

>> > children nodes with the tag. It becomes very trivial when using
>> > database with nodes having a parent:
>> >
>> > ,----
>> > | UPDATE hlinks SET hlinks_tags = 'TODO' WHERE hlinks_parent = THIS ONE;
>> > `----
>> >
>> > But rather a function would be used or type assigned. The above is
>> > only example that shows how complex hard coded Elisp functions can be
>> > replaced with 3-4 lines single function when database is a backend.
>> 
>> Why do you think that analogous Elisp function would be complex?
>> 
>> (defun yant/trigger-children (arg)
>>   "Change all the children to TODO when parent is TODO."
>>   (when (and (eq (plist-get arg :type) 'todo-state-change)
>> 	     (not (boundp 'trigger-children-progress))
>>              (string= (plist-get arg :to) "TODO"))
>>     (let (trigger-children-progress)
>>       (org-map-tree (lambda () (org-todo "TODO"))))))
>> (add-hook 'org-trigger-hook #'yant/trigger-children)
>
> Good for you, good for me. But not good as a product for people who
> are not programmers.

For people who are not programmers, the same can be done manually using
keyboard macro, which is even easier than a need to learn SQL (probably
because I don't know SQL and know macros).

Best,
Ihor

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[steve-humphreys]

> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 4:36 PM
> From: "Ihor Radchenko" <yantar92@gmail.com>
> To: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> Cc: "Tim Cross" <theophilusx@gmail.com>, daniela-spit@gmx.it, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> Dear Jean Louis,
>
> Thank you for the detailed insight into your extensive experience of
> project management and practical planning. I do not have that much
> experience, but can provide a significantly different point of view
> related to my research work.
>
> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
>
> > * Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-12-01 05:21]:
> >> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> >
> > Just as you got a hunch, random incidents happen all the time on
> > ground. There is set of policies and staff members get trained to
> > apply them. For example our coordination policy is to pretty much
> > coordinate any reasonable action before, during and after
> > execution. If staff member is departing to village such will send a
> > message and we know what is the action of a staff member. If
> > supervisor is on computer such action can be entered in same central
> > file. Otherwise email list of staff member holds track of actions.
> >
> > In that sense we help each other.
>
> Thanks for providing an example. I do agree that the management model
> you are using for your job fits into defining projects rather strictly
> and delegating the planning/non-trivial decision making to competent
> people. In such a context, ordered project plans with a single action at
> a time and each employee assigned to a single project do make a lot of
> sense. However, different perspectives do exist.
>
> My personal experience is doing a lot of research work. That's probably
> on the other side of the spectrum from the environment you are working
> in. I cannot define very concrete steps to execute a research project.
> Not because it is impossible, but rather because failures are pretty
> much guaranteed far before all the steps are executed. Moreover, most of
> time, it is not possible to consult someone else on resolution of the
> problem causing blockage, simply because the problem is something that
> never ever appeared in the past (that's the whole point of doing
> research). Instead, I need to spend a significant time trying to find
> *similar* problems digging through literature, talking to people working
> on related problems, or even just thinking. Then, waiting until the
> solution appears becomes a waste of time (there is even no guarantee
> that solution exists) - if there are other alternative approaches to
> achieve the global project objective, they would better be tried before
> the blockage in one particular direction in solved. In fact, switching
> to alternative approaches (or even projects) sometimes help to look at
> the problem from different angle and solve it. The described difficulty
> is *underestimation* of what can happen - even the initial project
> objectives can be changed according to the current research results.
> Trying to stick to a strict project structure in such a situation is a
> waste of time - project must be re-created from scratch very too often,
> unless it is more flexible from the very beginning.
>
> In fact, the situation does not apply to a single project. The whole
> project can be stuck and it is often helpful to have multiple projects
> that can be done (though it is necessary to stick to highest-priority
> project when possible).
>
> The described situation is where NEXT tasks/projects can become
> extremely helpful. Multiple NEXT tasks do not mean that I need to look
> at them every day and switch from one to another. There are NEXT tasks
> and there are NEXT tasks that are actually scheduled on specific day.
> One day cannot have more than several (ideally one) NEXT task (possibly
> containing a checklist). That's where agenda comes handy. It is not used
> to decide what to do during that day. It merely shows earlier decision
> when planning which project (and corresponding doable NEXT task) to do
> on specific day. Other items in agenda are things that must be done on
> that day anyway (meetings, mandatory habits, etc). Polluting agenda with
> unnecessary staff is no better than mindless browsing of youtube.
>
> > After this discussion and review of how SMOS implemented NEXT and how
> > some people implement NEXT while doing their planning with Org mode,
> > I see that it will never be necessary on my side. Just never.
> >
> > This is for reason that we use set of policies beforehand and train
> > people how to do projects. Number one is that person cannot start
> > doing any action without fully understanding all parts of the full
> > project. We expect person to be literate and capable at least in the
> > context of the project being executed. We push the purpose of the
> > project and reason, not the execution of single tasks. As purpose of
> > tasks are to achieve the purpose, person executing those tasks is
> > supposed to collaborate on the project and contribute to it. Executing
> > tasks is done by reason and not by robotic planning.
>
> > ...
>
> > That should clearly answer why NEXT is completely redundant as in all
> > experience of years of planning, writing projects and assigning such
> > to people I have not even encountered a problem related to the subject
> > "NEXT" as used by people in Org planning:
> >
> > - there is set of policies on how to train people for projects
> >
> > - there is set of policies how to coordinate, communicate, report,
> >   including report on events
> >
> > - plans have goals and purposes, projects fulfill one step of a plan,
> >   projects have its own purposes and tasks are there to complete a
> >   project
>
> > ...
>
> I hope I described my use-case sufficiently to show the difference with
> your situation. For research, "fully understanding all parts of the full
> project" means that project is pretty much completed and there is no
> need to look further except maybe writing reports.

Spot On

> As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of NEXT items is not for daily use.
> That's where scheduling can be used (at least, in my workflow). The
> purpose of NEXT items is making project review easier - they are mainly
> needed to provide hints on decision how to proceed with a blocked
> project. As you mentioned, this is useless when project steps are
> well-defined and little trouble is expected during execution.
>
> > - any task becomes reasonably redundant if we have achieved the
> >   project target. Any project becomes redundant if plan's step or
> >   plan's purpose have been achieved. This is contradictory to
> >   robotic way of how Org have been programmed in relation to list
> >   items:
> >
> >   - mark heading with TODO (let us say project purpose)
> >   - [ ] add TODO list items
> >   - only if all TODO list items are marked [X] the parent node can be
> >     marked as DONE
> >
> >   That approach is contradictory to human logic of achieving things. I
> >   am not doing a single task for the single task's sake but for higher
> >   purpose and if higher purpose have been achieved, all those planned
> >   single tasks become reasonably redundant.
>
> If target is flexible (like in research), extra TODO items can be useful
> as a reminder what else might be done. Also, note that org-mode does not
> strictly force todo dependencies. One can always force unconditional
> todo state change with C-u C-u C-u C-c C-t (or by setting
> org-enforce-todo-dependencies and
> org-enforce-todo-checkbox-dependencies).
>
> >   I am using word "reasonably" as that involves human who decides
> >   about it and not robotic following of the tasks and executing them
> >   just because they may appear as not DONE.
>
> I look at it from different perspective. Task dependency is forcing me
> to double-check the tasks not marked done and explicitly thinking if I
> need to do them and improve the project (remember, there is no
> well-defined project goal for me - things can always be improved, unless
> there is time limit). If I decide to not do the not-done task (by
> actively thinking, not by mindlessly marking project done just because I
> think the goals are nominally achieved), I just mark the task CANCELLED
> (which is a type of "done" keywords in org terminology). At the end,
> task dependency allows to double-check for any missing ideas I could
> forget about.
>
> > What is not reason is to have unreasonable files of allegedly ordered
> > tasks which are in reality not ordered and proof for that is that
> > org-agenda exists in the first place. People do not keep their
> > projects and tasks in ordered manner and they need org-agenda.
> >
> > That is why I almost never used org-agenda in last 5 years.
>
> While reading your examples about why org-mode is often promoting
> procrastination and messed up organisation, I feel that you expect more
> from org-mode than it is.
>
> You provided examples that people used their brains instead of computers
> and paper instead of files in the past and successfully managed complex
> projects. I would like to point out that org-mode to organisation and
> project management is just like pen and paper to project management and
> organisation. It is easy to have paper notes scattered all around the
> office, home, and half of them lost somewhere. Same in org-mode, and you
> provided enough examples. One needs to have a proper mindset and
> established workflows to manage real projects with pen and papers. I
> think about org-mode as about improved pen and paper - with proper
> workflows and organisation it can be very efficient; without
> organisation - it's just a digital mess, worse than some computer
> desktops. org-mode provides a set of instruments - they can be used in
> vastly different project management styles, some are more suitable to
> specific styles, some are less suitable. As you mentioned, org-agenda is
> not suitable for your style. It can be much better for others.

But you can use scripts on them, parsing operations to other programs,
and analysis.

> > org-agenda may be useful but it is on bottom of things, not on top of
> > things. Tasks in such planning do not belong anywhere, they are
> > distributed among files that are named any how where people do not
> > have any real method of sorting them. org-agenda will show then
> > anything, from personal tasks to business tasks, recreational, family
> > tasks or anything together and it does not make sense to me.
>
> While agenda can certainly show such kind of mix, it is indeed very
> inefficient use of this tool. If other readers of this thread are
> interested in better practices on using agenda, I recommend what is
> recommended in [1]. It is absolutely crucial to keep daily agenda as
> small as possible - only tasks that must be done on that day *and in the
> location context* should be shown. Mixture of home and work tasks must
> not happen. I knew this when I just started playing around with GTD, and
> I thought that it is not important. After years of experience, I have to
> say, that the rules about agenda are determinal to finishing work that
> matters.
>
> [1] Allen David [2015] Getting things done : the art of stress-free productivity
>
> > Working on Org file means working from bottom to top:
> >
> > - make tasks, little here, little there, organize maybe by some
> >   groups, make this or that file, search through agenda because I have
> >   not ordered anything how it should be. Think of task first because
> >   it is scheduled for its own sake of being scheduled. Do the task
> >   because it is task and not part of one higher purpose. Mark flag,
> >   add properties, tag them to be able to search them.
> >
> > The Org way of doing things is organizing procrastination with more
> > and more increasing complexities that are allegedly supposed to make
> > life easier.
> >
> > Please do not stone me.
>
> While one can work with org file the way you described, it is not
> necessary (and should not be done most of the time). High-level planning
> is very important. It can be ignored to capture ideas in the middle of
> doing something else, but those captured ideas should be thought about
> in context of the whole project and placed into (or discarded from) the
> project according to top-level objectives.
>
> > Here is structure of a project, as part of bigger plan. Projects can
> > be structured any how on my side. When assigned to other people there
> > are sections of introduction:
> >
> > 1 Primary principle for reading ;; explains to people not to skip misunderstoods
> > 2 Primary principle for communication ;; that we shall collaborate, etc.
> > 3 Definitions of words ;; defines terms related to project
> > 4 About company
> > 5 Goal of the project ;; known objective, actions are done to achieve
> >                          the goal and it has clear quote
> > 6 Purpose of the project ;; A purpose is a lesser goal applying to
> >                             specific activities or the sujects. It
> > 			    often expresses future intentions
> > 7 Requirements for this project ;; no moving to "TODO" without it!
> > 8 How to do this project ;; explains how to conduct project, reason,
> >                             logic, collaboration is all here
> > 9 How to report
> > 10 How to report on events
> > 11 How to make pictures
> > 12 Communication requirements [0/16]
> > 13 Personal introduction
> > 14 Project steps            ;; this is where operational targets are defined
> > 15 Awards
>
> Note: This project template is fairly similar to what is recommended by
> Allen David, except reporting and communication. I lack experience of
> large collaborations, so cannot elaborate much on this part.
>
> > If things are well organized from ground up then agenda becomes
> > redundant.
> >
> > Organized implies to me to know what is next to be done.
> >
> > Unorganized person does not know what is next to be done. That is why
> > Org agenda is there. Because tasks are scattered, not organized.
>
> Agenda cannot help unorganised person. Similarly with a paper (or paper
> calendar) that cannot help unorganised person. However, either calendar
> or agenda can be used efficiently as tools helping organisation (when
> they are suitable for the specific situation).
>
> > Org mode has headings and hierarchy and established ways for people to
> > order their goals, projects, tasks, but it is not what people are
> > doing, because there is no form structure in Org mode to tell where
> > something is allowed to be ordered and where not.
>
> Well-organised person would not need computer to keep records in
> relational database - even a simple paper would do if used properly [2].
> org-mode provides such tools, but org-mode does not teach or enforce
> organisation. The cost of being flexible is possibility to misuse. The
> power of being flexible is possibility to use much more efficiently than
> more restricted tools.
>
> [2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NfdHG6oHBJ8Qxc26s/the-zettelkasten-method-1
>
> > Each planning methodology requires something names goals or purposes
> > or objectives or targets and anything that has to be executed belong
> > to such goals. In military they will call them objectives. Myself I do
> > not approve of any wars neither military preparations, human animal is
> > crazy. But military planning methodology does not involve any random
> > searches over bunch of scattered tasks and data to find out what is
> > scheduled, etc. Army, marines, government officers in many countries
> > have methodology of planning that may be paper based or computer based
> > and outperforms any type of discussed Org established ways of
> > gathering the scattered.
> >
> > Thinking on long-range goal helps in determining short-range goals,
> > which help in determining which projects or tasks are to be executed.
>
> One can also refer to GTD methodology, which is more about long-term
> goals than about individual task - the point many people miss. (Search
> for GTD: Purpose, vision, goals, and areas of responsibility + weekly
> review).
>
> >> > children nodes with the tag. It becomes very trivial when using
> >> > database with nodes having a parent:
> >> >
> >> > ,----
> >> > | UPDATE hlinks SET hlinks_tags = 'TODO' WHERE hlinks_parent = THIS ONE;
> >> > `----
> >> >
> >> > But rather a function would be used or type assigned. The above is
> >> > only example that shows how complex hard coded Elisp functions can be
> >> > replaced with 3-4 lines single function when database is a backend.
> >>
> >> Why do you think that analogous Elisp function would be complex?
> >>
> >> (defun yant/trigger-children (arg)
> >>   "Change all the children to TODO when parent is TODO."
> >>   (when (and (eq (plist-get arg :type) 'todo-state-change)
> >> 	     (not (boundp 'trigger-children-progress))
> >>              (string= (plist-get arg :to) "TODO"))
> >>     (let (trigger-children-progress)
> >>       (org-map-tree (lambda () (org-todo "TODO"))))))
> >> (add-hook 'org-trigger-hook #'yant/trigger-children)
> >
> > Good for you, good for me. But not good as a product for people who
> > are not programmers.
>
> For people who are not programmers, the same can be done manually using
> keyboard macro, which is even easier than a need to learn SQL (probably
> because I don't know SQL and know macros).

SQL can be a lot of bother.

> Best,
> Ihor
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Ihor Radchenko]

steve-humphreys@gmx.com writes:

> But you can use scripts on them, parsing operations to other programs,
> and analysis.

Sorry, I miss your point here. Could you clarify what "them" referred
to?

Best,
Ihor

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jean Louis]

* Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-12-13 18:33]:
> Dear Jean Louis,
> 
> Thank you for the detailed insight into your extensive experience of
> project management and practical planning. I do not have that much
> experience, but can provide a significantly different point of view
> related to my research work.

I like to know it all to collect or steal what is good. ;-)

I am researching other software too and collecting what is good.

> My personal experience is doing a lot of research work. That's probably
> on the other side of the spectrum from the environment you are working
> in. I cannot define very concrete steps to execute a research project.
> Not because it is impossible, but rather because failures are pretty
> much guaranteed far before all the steps are executed. Moreover, most of
> time, it is not possible to consult someone else on resolution of the
> problem causing blockage, simply because the problem is something that
> never ever appeared in the past (that's the whole point of doing
> research). Instead, I need to spend a significant time trying to find
> *similar* problems digging through literature, talking to people working
> on related problems, or even just thinking. Then, waiting until the
> solution appears becomes a waste of time (there is even no guarantee
> that solution exists) - if there are other alternative approaches to
> achieve the global project objective, they would better be tried before
> the blockage in one particular direction in solved. In fact, switching
> to alternative approaches (or even projects) sometimes help to look at
> the problem from different angle and solve it. The described difficulty
> is *underestimation* of what can happen - even the initial project
> objectives can be changed according to the current research results.
> Trying to stick to a strict project structure in such a situation is a
> waste of time - project must be re-created from scratch very too often,
> unless it is more flexible from the very beginning.

When researching is not conducting clear plan. It is different stage
or can be independent activity of some planning with firm
objectives. I do research too. Plans are based on research
information. I do not mix research information and planning based on
research and that way plans remains without disturbance. They can be
read on screen what people do, executed from mobile phone or from
printed papers.

More interesting hyperlinks:

Planning For People Who Suck At Planning
https://debbieinshape.com/suck-planning/

How to STOP Over-Planning (And Start Doing!)
https://eringobler.com/overplanning/

Planning fallacy: why people suck at planning
https://blog.sandglaz.com/people-suck-at-planning/

The last above also speaks of our human over or under estimations. To
make things go right one has to have good sense of reality. Otherwise
schedules and deadline never become what they are intended to become.

> The described situation is where NEXT tasks/projects can become
> extremely helpful. Multiple NEXT tasks do not mean that I need to look
> at them every day and switch from one to another. There are NEXT tasks
> and there are NEXT tasks that are actually scheduled on specific day.
> One day cannot have more than several (ideally one) NEXT task (possibly
> containing a checklist). That's where agenda comes handy. It is not used
> to decide what to do during that day. It merely shows earlier decision
> when planning which project (and corresponding doable NEXT task) to do
> on specific day. Other items in agenda are things that must be done on
> that day anyway (meetings, mandatory habits, etc). Polluting agenda with
> unnecessary staff is no better than mindless browsing of youtube.

I do agree that thinking may be helped, just that as "next" I can have
only one next by its meaning of immediately following by its time or
order. I do not mind you having that type of thinking as you relate
your meaning to the text, tags or anything you have in front of
you. My point is that NEXT will not mean to onlooker the same what it
means to you. It would require explanations and learning the habit as
I always look on it how a group of people would look on it.

The nodes in my meta level dynamic knowledge repository have "Set ➜"
and by using that arrow I know I can enter into the node, it is not
just a note, I can go into the subtree. Such marking with the arrow
would be more logical but NEXT to me.

What is next probably means it is doable something and there may be
multiple doable items.

The items we put in planning are all doable. We do not put those not
doable as such are chunked into steps until each step becomes
doable. There is no block or obstacle for staff on ground in reading,
passing over, executing those steps as each step is doable for 
them. They know what is next by simple looking what was done
previously. The true meaning of "next" is used there.

Some small purchasing projects may give direction naturally which shop
is next to be visited for water pump to be purchased.

I have many geographical locations and when I am in huge country like
Tanzania I may like to visit some of locations that are closer to my
location. That require program to run over all locations to calculate
what is closer geographically.

Sure that there are different paradigms. I will probably never mark
something as NEXT, I will just take that what I think I can do and do
it. No marking. If I mark it, it was probably not next. That means
marking A next, B next, C next... but if it was really next why I did
not do it... this comment comes only from the true meaning of "next"
as one word. As term of multiple words "NEXT AVAILABLE TO DO" it would
give better meaning.

> I hope I described my use-case sufficiently to show the difference with
> your situation. For research, "fully understanding all parts of the full
> project" means that project is pretty much completed and there is no
> need to look further except maybe writing reports.

Definitely I understand that and I agree. It is difference in marking
and helping people understand the meanings.

To fully understand all parts of project document is better
formulated. All our projects are also research projects. We come into
area where we do not know circumstances and have to collect
information about people, technicians, medical facilities, people's
needs in the village, safety, crime, dangerous animals and their
probability of appearing and behavior, distances to roads, water
sources and their volume, vegetation, land configuration and so
on. For all those questions we have a written document. When there is
any word that person does not understand in the project it has first
to be clarified. People think they understand but they don't. We make
sure they will not go to field without truly understanding what has to
be done. Not the results or reports of the project but what is written
in the document.

> As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of NEXT items is not for daily use.
> That's where scheduling can be used (at least, in my workflow). The
> purpose of NEXT items is making project review easier - they are mainly
> needed to provide hints on decision how to proceed with a blocked
> project. As you mentioned, this is useless when project steps are
> well-defined and little trouble is expected during execution.

Projects may become blocked. As I think in this moment they become
blocked especially when project items are not fullfiled on
ground. When people become shy, timid for some reason or think they
should not do what is written or ordered or advised. That is where it
gets blocked on my side. It happens. Then new people have to be
chosen. 

> If target is flexible (like in research), extra TODO items can be useful
> as a reminder what else might be done. Also, note that org-mode does not
> strictly force todo dependencies. One can always force unconditional
> todo state change with C-u C-u C-u C-c C-t (or by setting
> org-enforce-todo-dependencies and
> org-enforce-todo-checkbox-dependencies).

Extra items fit into personal information management. As soon as there
is collaboration one has to think well what one writes as not to cause
further misunderstoods and not necessary discussions.

Our project documents have usually enough space on the paper so people
write those notes, observations on the paper itself. Later it is
scanned. Important information is reported in a daily report and from
there refiled maybe. Some new people are entered into database, new
locations or structured reports. With the collaborative online
accessible database, people may write reports offline and then click
something to upload it to the database.

In that sense we collect knowledge, reminders, etc. Just that main
project as document remains clean. If anything need enhancement in
such document new step is then added easily. I have always kept
documents separate and clean from each other and that is why I have
not get scattered things that I need to search through.

> >   I am using word "reasonably" as that involves human who decides
> >   about it and not robotic following of the tasks and executing them
> >   just because they may appear as not DONE.
> 
> I look at it from different perspective. Task dependency is forcing me
> to double-check the tasks not marked done and explicitly thinking if I
> need to do them and improve the project (remember, there is no
> well-defined project goal for me - things can always be improved, unless
> there is time limit).

On my side I made it very easy to make any hyperdocument
ACTION-able. But I made it harder to complete it or to remove action
as then Emacs ask me: Do you really wish to complete?

There are those 2 different paradigms to first close tasks and then
close the senior heading or purpose, or to mark all tasks redundant
when purpose have been accomplished.

As I know work with the database it is easy to assign such type when
purpose have been accomplished that all subordinate items become
redundant or unmarked from being any actionable items. I do not mark
them anyhow as if they are under project which is considered action
there is no need to mark each task which is visibly task to be task by
marking it with TODO. If necessary I can even highlight whole lines,
but no need. I could include sound or even spoken text that there is
something to do in that section of the tree. If headings are well
written computer may also wake me up by alarm and talk to me what is
to be done next.

Now back to those 2 paradigms, don't you think that sometimes it is
necessary for heading to actually complete all subordinate items to
complete the senior item? And then sometimes it is necessary to mark
all subordinates redundant when senior item is marked as done?

And then we have variables that impact not only one Org file, but all
Org files together. That does not fly well. Each heading could be of
this or the other type and should have its property marked as this or
that. Maybe this exists in Org mode that I do not know.

** Paint the room

1. Purchase paint
2. Purchase brush
3. Find newspaper
4. Paint the room
5. Clean newspapers
6. Clean everything

That above is example where subordinate items need to be accomplished
for senior heading to be marked as done.

** Paint the house

1. Ask Joe if he could paint the house
2. Ask Jane if she could paing the house
3. Ask Jimmy if he could paint the house

The above example is where subordinate items need not be completed for
the objective to be fullfiled. One Org file could have separate types
of headings where one general option does not fit all cases. 

> If I decide to not do the not-done task (by actively thinking, not
> by mindlessly marking project done just because I think the goals
> are nominally achieved), I just mark the task CANCELLED (which is a
> type of "done" keywords in org terminology). At the end, task
> dependency allows to double-check for any missing ideas I could
> forget about.

Yes, it is on that part of marks. Some things get cancelled. I am
using various keywords to mark the items or assign some meta data, but
there is main status of task that says if action is to be done. If
something is cancelled, action mark is removed and timestamp for
cancelled inserted. If it was cancelled and re-activated there is
track of it as well to see who did what at what time and why
(description possible). As we can see from past few weeks meta data
for a heading becomes very large and it is not made for plain text, it
needs separate database, so I have it.

> > What is not reason is to have unreasonable files of allegedly ordered
> > tasks which are in reality not ordered and proof for that is that
> > org-agenda exists in the first place. People do not keep their
> > projects and tasks in ordered manner and they need org-agenda.
> >
> > That is why I almost never used org-agenda in last 5 years.
> 
> While reading your examples about why org-mode is often promoting
> procrastination and messed up organisation, I feel that you expect more
> from org-mode than it is.

I have expected it to enhance something in my planning since 5
years. It did enhance the document preparation, but also in same time
degraded document preparation. Sure that I am not limited in how much
LaTeX I can use but if I wish to have readable document I have to keep
things simplers with Org than with LaTeX. That is personal benefit for
me. We make contracts with Org mode, project documents, instruction
documents.

Sure I expected it would bring some better paradigm of managing
tasks. As you have seen in the manual it teaches users to put notes
and tasks anywhere, somewhere it mentiones best seller book and GTD,
nothing more than that. Other websites speak of various paradigms. In
Org they are not explained. Org mode is pretty much low level, not
high level. It is a mark up language limited to Emacs.

I do not see that I expect too much of Org. The CRM software I was
researching 15 years ago and they still have people assigned, related
people, sending tasks by email and so on. Those are features that
should be commong to any task or planning management. It is not Org
mode only, there are other software designed without enough
brainstorming.

Summary is that Org mode is good as PIM = Personal Information
Manager, not for anything beyond that.

As I love Emacs I got hooked on how people explain their Org mode and
tasks and stuff and I was thinking that is something. People manage
mostly their personal life, get hooked on it due to love to Emacs. And
I am focusing on groups and people beyond my individual personal
information management. If it does not work well alone, then I have
upgraded it that it works from meta level. Org remains there as one of
possible mark up types or modes that one can use.

Database is Emacs independent. SQL queries are pretty much same and
functions may be reused by other software. Let us say I wish to enable
Javascript access, or make Android/LineageOS/Replicant application, or
even use it from vim or some other applications or different OS-es it
is possible. Haiku is quite nice OS, there is Emacs if I remember
well, it could use the database. Mezzano is Lisp OS:
https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano and it would be possible to
re-write Emacs Lisp functions to access it from such.

People can even access the database from Org mode itself, and update
the nodes as well. I could write simple functions to convert Org mode
notes to database nodes. Then it could as well edit database nodes. It
is even simpler:

- export from database, each heading would have its corresponding and
  really unique ID numbers. As long as not changed by hand, simple key
  press like F5 could update the edited node back into the
  database. Additionally it would not need to, it could remap file
  saving action or some kill-buffer or similar to iterate over all
  nodes, compare them and update some into the database. Org mode
  could be used to edit database entries.

> You provided examples that people used their brains instead of
> computers and paper instead of files in the past and successfully
> managed complex projects. I would like to point out that org-mode to
> organisation and project management is just like pen and paper to
> project management and organisation. It is easy to have paper notes
> scattered all around the office, home, and half of them lost
> somewhere.

I never had it that way. I have been keeping those hard binded
planners with dates and years, but I preferred those without dates for
liberty of using multiple pages and I wrote things there. So I never
had in my life situation of scattered papers. One year would have 1 or
2 such books. Later I was using German style notes on paper that are
all ordered in one box. This related to people and closing agreements
to people, everything was on one place. Some phone numbers from phone
calls were written onto some notes and rewritten later. More than that
I never had scattered paper notes around office or anywhere. I do have
scattered papers like documents that need sorting, but are more of
archive type.

That is why I say that Org manual section on TODOs is teaching people
bad habits and admits it is bad habit as it speaks of scattered stuff
and compensation for that by using Org agenda.

> Same in org-mode, and you provided enough examples. One needs to
> have a proper mindset and established workflows to manage real
> projects with pen and papers.

That is what I expect from the Org manual to give people more options
to establish their workflows as now it is giving options too but
narrowed and one can see that people follow the pattern and paradigm
that leads to more and more complexities. Life does not get simpler
that way, it becomes complex and dependent on computer very much.

Would those scattered files be printed one would not know where is
what, as there is no real life agenda.

My files when printed are ordered by projects and one can pick out a
project and follow it to fullfill its purposes and goals. There is
nothing missing in the project neither there are supefluous items that
belong to some other project. Agenda is right there by looking into
the project itself.

Maybe that should be the test if planning is good, if one can print it
and not get lost without using computer.

> I think about org-mode as about improved pen and paper - with proper
> workflows and organisation it can be very efficient;

That is right. But that is what people do not get to learn.

> without organisation - it's just a digital mess, worse than some
> computer desktops.

I don't have Desktop polluted, it was always empty. I do have one
folder in $HOME like TO-DO and one TO-SORT where items go before
sorting.

> org-mode provides a set of instruments - they can be used in vastly
> different project management styles, some are more suitable to
> specific styles, some are less suitable. As you mentioned,
> org-agenda is not suitable for your style. It can be much better for
> others.

If there are paradigms that can help people such shall be referenced
from the manual and pages. There is already reference to GTD, I do not
find myself there but if it helps some people those paradigms should
be explained. Otherwise without explanation people are learning what
they do, I can see many do not have organized way like you.

> While agenda can certainly show such kind of mix, it is indeed very
> inefficient use of this tool. If other readers of this thread are
> interested in better practices on using agenda, I recommend what is
> recommended in [1]. It is absolutely crucial to keep daily agenda as
> small as possible - only tasks that must be done on that day *and in the
> location context* should be shown. Mixture of home and work tasks must
> not happen. I knew this when I just started playing around with GTD, and
> I thought that it is not important. After years of experience, I have to
> say, that the rules about agenda are determinal to finishing work that
> matters.

Also nice insight.

> [1] Allen David [2015] Getting things done : the art of stress-free
> productivity

Natural Project Planning with org-mode
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~charles57/GTD/Natural_Project_Planning.html

On that link it speaks of GTD principles, one is defining
objective. But among those steps I do not find myself there except
number (1).

1. Outline objective
2. Outcome visioning
3. Brainstorming
4. Organizing
5. Identifying next action

This because visioning and brainstorming would come before the
objective is well defined. Some rather general or vague objective is
there during visioning and brainstorming. When well defined objective
is written down, those parts of organizing and identifying next
actions become part of the project. If money is missing, project step
will say that money has to be made. If people are not recruited or
employes, project step will dictate that. I was never lost after (5)
like identifying next action that I can correlate to the above
system. I have defined ALL actions necessary to achieve the goal by
deduction from the objective and never had one or more actions by not
knowing what would be next. Then it is not planning, it is
adventure. I do that in my mind and discover life that way.

Planning is when set of factors is already known, not enough known,
but pretty well known and if they have to be discvered that discovery
becomes part of project that can itself demand project creation at
certain stage or branch. 

> > Working on Org file means working from bottom to top:
> >
> > - make tasks, little here, little there, organize maybe by some
> >   groups, make this or that file, search through agenda because I have
> >   not ordered anything how it should be. Think of task first because
> >   it is scheduled for its own sake of being scheduled. Do the task
> >   because it is task and not part of one higher purpose. Mark flag,
> >   add properties, tag them to be able to search them.
> >
> > The Org way of doing things is organizing procrastination with more
> > and more increasing complexities that are allegedly supposed to make
> > life easier.
> >
> > Please do not stone me.
> 
> While one can work with org file the way you described, it is not
> necessary (and should not be done most of the time). High-level planning
> is very important. It can be ignored to capture ideas in the middle of
> doing something else, but those captured ideas should be thought about
> in context of the whole project and placed into (or discarded from) the
> project according to top-level objectives.

I agree completely.

> > Here is structure of a project, as part of bigger plan. Projects can
> > be structured any how on my side. When assigned to other people there
> > are sections of introduction:
> >
> > 1 Primary principle for reading ;; explains to people not to skip misunderstoods
> > 2 Primary principle for communication ;; that we shall collaborate, etc.
> > 3 Definitions of words ;; defines terms related to project
> > 4 About company
> > 5 Goal of the project ;; known objective, actions are done to achieve
> >                          the goal and it has clear quote
> > 6 Purpose of the project ;; A purpose is a lesser goal applying to
> >                             specific activities or the sujects. It
> > 			    often expresses future intentions
> > 7 Requirements for this project ;; no moving to "TODO" without it!
> > 8 How to do this project ;; explains how to conduct project, reason,
> >                             logic, collaboration is all here
> > 9 How to report        
> > 10 How to report on events
> > 11 How to make pictures
> > 12 Communication requirements [0/16] 
> > 13 Personal introduction
> > 14 Project steps            ;; this is where operational targets are defined
> > 15 Awards
> 
> Note: This project template is fairly similar to what is recommended by
> Allen David, except reporting and communication. I lack experience of
> large collaborations, so cannot elaborate much on this part.

Just think how would you get feedback of somebody on distance? If they
do not report before action, during action, after the action, you may
get lost. If there is no daily report, you will not know that person
got stuck somewhere across the river in a truck because it was raining
and you would demand that same person to be in a city 100 miles away
negotiating with your partners. In other words when there is no
coordination things do not get done properly.

> > If things are well organized from ground up then agenda becomes
> > redundant.
> >
> > Organized implies to me to know what is next to be done.
> >
> > Unorganized person does not know what is next to be done. That is why
> > Org agenda is there. Because tasks are scattered, not organized.
> 
> Agenda cannot help unorganised person.

Come on, let's face it, agenda is exactly for that. OK joke on side. I
do think that organized person have agenda, it is list of things to
do, but that list is right there and is not a product of search
through scattered files and notes. I was writing back in time my
weekly agenda and pushed all items to be done. Something was not done
and was pushed to next week to be done. This worked well. Nobody
doubted it. It was one paper, and each staff member had the
paper. Supervisors could simple ask for the weekly agenda and would
inspect it or advise enhancements. Imagine if we would need to invoke
computer search to find our weekly agenda... funny situation. 

> Similarly with a paper (or paper calendar) that cannot help
> unorganised person.

True.

> However, either calendar or agenda can be used efficiently as tools
> helping organisation (when they are suitable for the specific
> situation).

Agenda can be used surely to help organization of personal things,
maybe organization of people, rather unlikely as it is more for
personal information stuff.

> > Org mode has headings and hierarchy and established ways for people to
> > order their goals, projects, tasks, but it is not what people are
> > doing, because there is no form structure in Org mode to tell where
> > something is allowed to be ordered and where not.
> 
> Well-organised person would not need computer to keep records in
> relational database - even a simple paper would do if used properly
> [2].

Definitely. But because my hand writing would be more readable to crow
than to human, I have to keep things in computer that has nicer output
on printer. In case of nuclear war or aliens superpower and computer
outages I will have to switch to Zettelkasten again. Before I used few
boxes with Zettelkasten and it worked well. But I did not have too
many relations.

When new inquiry arrives over website, it does not arrive to database
straight, but as Lisp data. I press key in mutt that lisp data gets
decrypted and inserted into the database. There is phone, full name
parsed, country, email address and inquiry text, there are many
inquiries, I would not catch up writing this all. One key on computer
writes their names, I need not.

> org-mode provides such tools, but org-mode does not teach or enforce
> organisation.

Wrong. (info "(org) TODO Items") teaches disorganization.

If it already teaches some disorganization that is compensated by Org
tools, then why not teach better some methods of organization. Why
leave it to other people when it could be centrally done from a
website at least. Paradigms of organizing life.

> The cost of being flexible is possibility to misuse. The power of
> being flexible is possibility to use much more efficiently than more
> restricted tools.

Which brings it to the level for advanced users only. It does not
integrate things for average users. The whole point of computer is to
integrate things for human and have human work less, not human work
more for software it uses. 

> > Thinking on long-range goal helps in determining short-range goals,
> > which help in determining which projects or tasks are to be executed.
> 
> One can also refer to GTD methodology, which is more about long-term
> goals than about individual task - the point many people miss. (Search
> for GTD: Purpose, vision, goals, and areas of responsibility + weekly
> review).

It is something idiosyncratic, I do not relate to it, only the
objective is to me known. Those other things are upside down to me. It
shows how people are different. I would not give that book to somebody
as I could not recommend it that way. For various business and
humanitarian projects brainstorming was before project planning, not
after. Before the goal definition, not after. Visions as well. Then
came goal definition and all the plan can be written from mind without
even delaying there. Personal habit brought me in situation that I
could take almost any business that I can see in front of me, review
its statistics, gather information, and break down the projects
without delay on how to improve the business.

If I am in situation not to have project in front of me, that means I
was not planning. If I need brainstorming at the time when I need
action, it may be too late. Action shall be swift, clear, unmistaken
with clear objective to be achieved.

I do not condone wars, but imagine if military commander gets into the
situation to know that one needs to enter some area, but let him
brainstorm there and create visions, maybe he finds out what is next
to be done. I know many did so, and died. That is why successful
military operations have possibly all circumstances planned including
those on what to do when it is not planned. 

Regarding SQL it is pretty readable as human language, probably few
times better readable than well written meaningful Emacs lisp
functions. SQL databases spare a lot of time to programmer as they are
already programmed with many functions.

SELECT * FROM notes ORDER BY notes_datecreated DESC;

would sort notes by date created (call the column as you wish) but in
reverse order. Latest notes would be shown first. Order by its ID, or
by scheduled, deadline, order by people assigned, you name it. It
helps to get those intersections what agenda is trying to do with
hardcoded functions. In general it is easier for people to extend a
report by constructing SQL then by constructing Emacs Lisp functions
due to its meaningful language:

UPDATE notes SET notes_text = 'My new update' WHERE notes_id = 2;

I am sure you can understand that above without previous SQL
knowledge. it updates text of the note number 2 to something
new. Those SQL queries are low level and usually not visible to
users. Users chooses Emacs function from menu or M-x or by any other
means from other software. SQL is executed as result of Emacs Lisp
function.

Thank you for conversation,
Jean

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Tim Cross]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Dear Jean Louis,
>
> Thank you for the detailed insight into your extensive experience of
> project management and practical planning. I do not have that much
> experience, but can provide a significantly different point of view
> related to my research work.
>

Some good observations. I have cut most of it out to stop the thread
from becoming too long.

I think it is very important to recognise there is no one way to do
project management or organise a project. Different industries have
different requirements. For example, project management requirements to
build a bridge are very different from those to build the software that
will be the next evolution of social networking sites.

The way Jean Louis describes project management sounds very similar to
the waterfall methodology which was popular in software development up
until the late 90s. It is a methodology that can work well when you have
a well defined and understood project, like building a bridge where we
have a couple of thousand years of experience and engineering knowledge.
It doesn't work particularly well with software projects and has been
largely replaced by various 'Agile' methodologies which are similar to
what you outline as your experiences and approach with research. Even
within the software development space, you find considerable variation
because different stages within the software life-cycle have different
requirements. For example, during the R&D stage, there are far more
'unknowns' than 'knowns'. Often, many things will need to be tried and
then accepted or rejected (suck and see). At this stage, you need to be
fast and flexible with maybe 80% of ideas ending up on the scrap heap.
You have limited ability to identify all the stages, all the tasks or
make terribly accurate estimates on completion time. Later, the software
will move into production status. Things change considerably at this
point. Here you need stability, reliability and performance. Changes
often need to be justified from a return on investment perspective.
There are fewer unknowns, more accurate estimates and better defined
tasks.

Is org mode suitable in all these scenarios? Possibly not or perhaps
there are dedicated project management tools which are better suited.
Org is not a project management tool, but it is a tool that is flexible
enough for many people to use it for either project management or for
part of the project management process.

To argue for a specific workflow using org mode in a specific manner
with only the task types you believe are relevant fails to recognise the
vast differences in requirements everyone has or personal preferences in
how individuals like to manage their projects or information. The great
power of org mode is in the ease to which it can be bent to fit with the
individual's preferred workflow. This is significantly different from
many other solutions which require you to adjust your workflow to fit
with the tool. The great weakness with org mode is that this tends to
make everyone think they have found and defined the ultimate approach,
which can easily reach religious heights and inspire a missionary zeal
to evangelise their perception of the world.


--
Tim Cross

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[pietru]

> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 9:59 PM
> From: "Tim Cross" <theophilusx@gmail.com>
> To: "Ihor Radchenko" <yantar92@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>, daniela-spit@gmx.it, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
>
> Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Dear Jean Louis,
> >
> > Thank you for the detailed insight into your extensive experience of
> > project management and practical planning. I do not have that much
> > experience, but can provide a significantly different point of view
> > related to my research work.
> >
>
> Some good observations. I have cut most of it out to stop the thread
> from becoming too long.
>
> I think it is very important to recognise there is no one way to do
> project management or organise a project. Different industries have
> different requirements. For example, project management requirements to
> build a bridge are very different from those to build the software that
> will be the next evolution of social networking sites.
>
> The way Jean Louis describes project management sounds very similar to
> the waterfall methodology which was popular in software development up
> until the late 90s. It is a methodology that can work well when you have
> a well defined and understood project, like building a bridge where we
> have a couple of thousand years of experience and engineering knowledge.
> It doesn't work particularly well with software projects and has been
> largely replaced by various 'Agile' methodologies which are similar to
> what you outline as your experiences and approach with research. Even
> within the software development space, you find considerable variation
> because different stages within the software life-cycle have different
> requirements. For example, during the R&D stage, there are far more
> 'unknowns' than 'knowns'. Often, many things will need to be tried and
> then accepted or rejected (suck and see). At this stage, you need to be
> fast and flexible with maybe 80% of ideas ending up on the scrap heap.
> You have limited ability to identify all the stages, all the tasks or
> make terribly accurate estimates on completion time. Later, the software
> will move into production status. Things change considerably at this
> point. Here you need stability, reliability and performance. Changes
> often need to be justified from a return on investment perspective.
> There are fewer unknowns, more accurate estimates and better defined
> tasks.
>
> Is org mode suitable in all these scenarios? Possibly not or perhaps
> there are dedicated project management tools which are better suited.
> Org is not a project management tool, but it is a tool that is flexible
> enough for many people to use it for either project management or for
> part of the project management process.
>
> To argue for a specific workflow using org mode in a specific manner
> with only the task types you believe are relevant fails to recognise the
> vast differences in requirements everyone has or personal preferences in
> how individuals like to manage their projects or information. The great
> power of org mode is in the ease to which it can be bent to fit with the
> individual's preferred workflow. This is significantly different from
> many other solutions which require you to adjust your workflow to fit
> with the tool. The great weakness with org mode is that this tends to
> make everyone think they have found and defined the ultimate approach,
> which can easily reach religious heights and inspire a missionary zeal
> to evangelise their perception of the world.

I know people are trying to help.  Still, I fully agree with Tim here.
I want to give more flexibility to people in the ditches.  They should
decide  their approach and be able to adjust their workflow as they see
fit.  Currently capture works ok for some, but if we get the buffer to have
flexibility as emacs, it would make a big difference, and they will use it.

Particularly for extensive excavations where different regions are under
separate direction.

> --
> Tim Cross
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jean Louis]

* Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> [2020-12-14 00:42]:
> 
> Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Dear Jean Louis,
> >
> > Thank you for the detailed insight into your extensive experience of
> > project management and practical planning. I do not have that much
> > experience, but can provide a significantly different point of view
> > related to my research work.
> >
> 
> Some good observations. I have cut most of it out to stop the thread
> from becoming too long.
> 
> I think it is very important to recognise there is no one way to do
> project management or organise a project. Different industries have
> different requirements. For example, project management requirements to
> build a bridge are very different from those to build the software that
> will be the next evolution of social networking sites.

I do recognize, but the Org manual does not:

(info "(org) TODO Items")

> 5 TODO Items
> ************

> Org mode does not maintain TODO lists as separate documents(1).
> Instead, TODO items are an integral part of the notes file, because TODO
> items usually come up while taking notes!  With Org mode, simply mark
> any entry in a tree as being a TODO item.  In this way, information is
> not duplicated, and the entire context from which the TODO item emerged
> is always present.

> Of course, this technique for managing TODO items scatters them
> throughout your notes file.  Org mode compensates for this by providing
> methods to give you an overview of all the things that you have to do.

Thus the Org manual is already giving a technique for managing TODO
items and admitting it is scattering things. Why not then straight
give to users one page with at least 3-5 other paradigms that users
can follow. This way users follow only the scattering paradigm.

> The way Jean Louis describes project management sounds very similar to
> the waterfall methodology which was popular in software development up
> until the late 90s. It is a methodology that can work well when you have
> a well defined and understood project, like building a bridge where we
> have a couple of thousand years of experience and engineering
> knowledge.

It sounds right.

> It doesn't work particularly well with software projects and has been
> largely replaced by various 'Agile' methodologies which are similar to
> what you outline as your experiences and approach with research. Even
> within the software development space, you find considerable variation
> because different stages within the software life-cycle have different
> requirements.

You may be right, I never used Org mode to plan software. I know those
workflows and it should be planned and so on, but I don't. Instead of
planning I just make what I personally need.

> For example, during the R&D stage, there are far more 'unknowns'
> than 'knowns'. Often, many things will need to be tried and then
> accepted or rejected (suck and see). At this stage, you need to be
> fast and flexible with maybe 80% of ideas ending up on the scrap
> heap.

I like to see some concept. All our projects also have R&D
stage. Preliminary Site Assessment and Inspection project is
such. That is why it is part of the project. After that project has
been done the next project is devised. But there is overall plan that
says:

- do the R&D
- devise project for result from R&D

> You have limited ability to identify all the stages, all the tasks
> or make terribly accurate estimates on completion time.

That stage is defined on my side as part of the plan. We know that we
will have limited ability, but that is why projects can branch, expand
dynamically. 

> Later, the software will move into production status. Things change
> considerably at this point. Here you need stability, reliability and
> performance. Changes often need to be justified from a return on
> investment perspective.  There are fewer unknowns, more accurate
> estimates and better defined tasks.

Even this is qualification stage where it is obviously and your
description shows it, part of the overall plan.

> Is org mode suitable in all these scenarios? Possibly not or perhaps
> there are dedicated project management tools which are better suited.
> Org is not a project management tool, but it is a tool that is flexible
> enough for many people to use it for either project management or for
> part of the project management process.

As a document preparation system it is possibly suitable, more than
suitable for planning of what you described. And nothing you described
does not seem to fall out of planning capability.

Any scenario may be described by documents. General text is enough. So
Org mode is more than enough to describe such planning. Unless you
refer to something else than what I think.

As a planning system with TODO stuff, or actionable items, I am
arguing how useful it is in that scenario or any scenario. What you
described has its logic, chronology, it has its plan. You described
overall plan. Nothing different than my scenario. Paradigm is same,
maybe you do not see it. We have all time R&D and dynamical branching
of projects. But all that is part of larger plan.

Often we will not know where is the water source, how much water we
could get from specific water source, if water is polluted or used by
people that we should not use it and find other ways, if it is on 2
kilometers or 100 meters. That requires a project or branch to be
devised when the time comes. This is first done by people on ground
who propose the project then by collaboration it becomes well defined
and engaged. It can be that person need to go to other city to
purchase pipes for 2 kilometers and couplings and that person need to
talk to chairman and neighbors where the pipe passes and that
collaboration of many people is necessary until water may be brought
to the place. Many things may be involved only to bring water to the
site.

But the plan says:

- conduct Preliminary Site Assessment and Inspection (project in itself)

- solve water supply (make project yourself)

> To argue for a specific workflow using org mode in a specific manner
> with only the task types you believe are relevant fails to recognise the
> vast differences in requirements everyone has or personal preferences in
> how individuals like to manage their projects or information.

Everybody has personal preferences. What I do not fail to see is that
many people popularize Org mode by using the scattered technique just
as advertised on the website, on videos, and Org manual, and just as
compensated by the org-agenda. Those others who handle their things
are not in the scattering group.

> The great power of org mode is in the ease to which it can be bent
> to fit with the individual's preferred workflow.

Org mode is too much high level. There is no inherent power in
itself. Put a person behind computer and observe how that person
"plans" or do anything with Org mode and inspect.

Today we discussed on different mailing list about the menu item Tools
-> Search files (grep) and Tools -> Recursive grep and main developer
finds the option user friendly, I don't find the option user
friendly. Then I ask staff member, geologist in Tanzania, who anyway
used computers for many users and finished doing Emacs tutorial if she
can understand what is "Recursive grep", so there is no way. She would
not be able to find files by using Emacs. For full understanding one
has to know GNU/Linux or BSD/Unix command line and to know what "grep"
means in the first place, and then one has to have experience of using
it and then one can understand "Recursive grep".

And I compare that real life inspection of Emacs usability to your
statement of great power of org mode and easy it can be bent to fit
whatever workflows. That is what you think, I do think the same, but I
do not agree it is user friendly.

Among all various free software note taking applications it is
probably unfriendliest. I also love it, but I look at its face without
closing my eyes (or one eye).

TiddlyWiki note taking in a browser
https://tiddlywiki.com/

That note taking application can be also used for planning. If
information is stored on remote WebDav server maybe it could be used
even for collaboration. But it is intuitive and more accessible than
Org and way better usable than Org.

Or:

Cherrytree - hierarchical note taking application with rich text and syntax highlighting
https://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/

Everybody can make a test:

- open up Org mode in Emacs, and call somebody who used computer, but
  never Org mode and tell him to make a note, or task

- open up TiddlyWiki, Cherrytree, Joplin, Turtleapp, Leo editor and
  then tell him to make a note or a task

- let them create project of 3 items in each of those.

- write down your findings and bring it here that we may make
  conclusions what Org mode needs to catch up with those maybe
  friendlier tools.

Using family or friends is fine. I would like to see how it will look
in Org mode, probable scrabble that does not look like anything that
experienced people do with Org mode.

Love is a strong bias or prejudice. We love it, we have
prejudices. But where is comparison?

> This is significantly different from many other solutions which
> require you to adjust your workflow to fit with the tool.

When you say it I find it funny. Yes, Cherrytree and TwiddleWiki and
others will ask you to adjust to fit to the tool. There are subtrees,
headlines, rigidness, etc.

But how much is Org asking us as users to fit with the tool?
Tremendously, uncompared to anything else!

- try opening Org menu item and if you have more than one agenda file,
  you will not be able to use the mouse to come to the documentation
  section. Usability? From 1 to 10 I rank that to 1. User would need
  to learn from somebody that mouse pointer has to be moved away from
  the drop down menu to go around, to skip the agenda list of files,
  so that it may reach down to Org documentation (maybe this is why
  there are not many bugs reported)

- did we already say that Export menu does not fit well on the screen?
  Terrible usability. We can customize what to export but we cannot
  practically use it on screen. We talked about Org capture screen
  being too small. Not only that user has to adapt to the tool, user
  is asked to learn Emacs Lisp. I find that positive in one way,
  rather negative in practical as such learning requirement is too
  steep!

- this list of our adaptations to Org may be followed
  indefinitely. User cannot find some feature useful, the answer is
  more or less that user can make it. If not user maybe somebody makes
  it simply. Ah, something does not work. We are Wizards of Oz, we
  just use Emacs Lisp and look hey, it does work now. Ah, again
  something does not work, ah there is solution, just learn Emacs Lisp
  and it works. I don't mind, I enjoy that, but adaptation never ends,
  software never completes, and usability does not raise.

  I have three people in this house and each of them would be able to
  use Gnumeric spreadsheet for planning but not Org mode. Taking notes
  is not intuitive in Org mode. Even making a headline is not as
  intuitive compared to all those other tools.

I did listen to the advise: if something does not work, you can DIY,
so I did myself what I need myself. I skipped the great Org and placed
it as a possible node between all other nodes which can have any other
mode: markdown, asciidoc, rst, txt2tags, you name it. Implementing
babel-like functions is also possible and user extensible in much
simpler way than hard coding it with Org babel. Cherrytree also leaves
code blocks user extensible, just decide how to run it yourself. No
need to hard code.

> The great weakness with org mode is that this tends to make everyone
> think they have found and defined the ultimate approach, which can
> easily reach religious heights and inspire a missionary zeal to
> evangelise their perception of the world.  -- Tim Cross

I do not see that as weakness, I do understand you and where you wish
to go, but no. 

Great weakness is its foundation as how it was designed only for
advanced users using Emacs who cannot understand they are advanced
users and so everything becomes little bit or much hackish and that
does not really help great number of people who hear about Org mode as
"powerful" tool.

Jean

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jean Louis]

* daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-11-29 02:30]:
> > What you see as a problem some see as a solution. For instance, it depends how many
> > org-files you want to add to the agenda. Some users including me have 2
> > or three files in  org-agenda-files so I never interact with this
> > variable directly.
> 
> I have many and they change quite frequently, depending on project.
> So often torture emacs hard.  Have sent a bug-report about it.  Keen
> for a change to go through.

You may customize any Emacs variables yourself. Just define your
agenda files yourself in your init file. Then do:

{M-x customize-variables RET org-agenda-files RET} and erase what you
find there.

Anything before the `custom' section in your init file will be then
defined by you and not by the built in system.

In that case you should take care as user over time not to use
org-agenda-file-to-front command as that would again start adding
agend files to init file. Then just use your own settings.

As long as you have your own settings hard coded you may erase the
variable org-agenda-files

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 5:46 AM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> * daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-11-29 02:30]:
> > > What you see as a problem some see as a solution. For instance, it depends how many
> > > org-files you want to add to the agenda. Some users including me have 2
> > > or three files in  org-agenda-files so I never interact with this
> > > variable directly.
> >
> > I have many and they change quite frequently, depending on project.
> > So often torture emacs hard.  Have sent a bug-report about it.  Keen
> > for a change to go through.
>
> You may customize any Emacs variables yourself. Just define your
> agenda files yourself in your init file. Then do:
>
> {M-x customize-variables RET org-agenda-files RET} and erase what you
> find there.
>
> Anything before the `custom' section in your init file will be then
> defined by you and not by the built in system.
>
> In that case you should take care as user over time not to use
> org-agenda-file-to-front command as that would again start adding
> agend files to init file. Then just use your own settings.
>
> As long as you have your own settings hard coded you may erase the
> variable org-agenda-files

That worries me because I do not want to change the behaviuor of Emacs
for users.  Otherwise when people ask for help they will become confused.

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Tim Cross]

daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:

>> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 5:46 AM
>> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
>> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
>> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
>> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>>
>> * daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-11-29 02:30]:
>> > > What you see as a problem some see as a solution. For instance, it depends how many
>> > > org-files you want to add to the agenda. Some users including me have 2
>> > > or three files in  org-agenda-files so I never interact with this
>> > > variable directly.
>> >
>> > I have many and they change quite frequently, depending on project.
>> > So often torture emacs hard.  Have sent a bug-report about it.  Keen
>> > for a change to go through.
>>
>> You may customize any Emacs variables yourself. Just define your
>> agenda files yourself in your init file. Then do:
>>
>> {M-x customize-variables RET org-agenda-files RET} and erase what you
>> find there.
>>
>> Anything before the `custom' section in your init file will be then
>> defined by you and not by the built in system.
>>
>> In that case you should take care as user over time not to use
>> org-agenda-file-to-front command as that would again start adding
>> agend files to init file. Then just use your own settings.
>>
>> As long as you have your own settings hard coded you may erase the
>> variable org-agenda-files
>
> That worries me because I do not want to change the behaviuor of Emacs
> for users.  Otherwise when people ask for help they will become confused.

Just a small clarification on the above directions.

If you have *both* a settings in your emacs init file for
org-agenda-files using (setq org-agenda-files...) and you have a line in
your (custom ...) section, you should remove one of them to avoid
confusion. In general, what is in the custom section will take
preference as it is usually loaded last. If your going to remove the one
in the custom section, run M-x customize-variable <ret> org-agenda-files
<ret> and then select the options under the 'state' button to 'Erase
Customisation', don't just erase the values in the 'Value Menu' box.

I'm not sure if I would classify the problem you ran into as a bug or
user error. Emacs has 2 main ways to customise behaviour. either you can
do it manually using things like (setq ...) in your init file, *OR* you
can use the customize interface to make the changes using a high level
'widget' base UI. This all works pretty well unless you try to use both
methods to customise the same thing.

In your case, the correct way to update the org-agenda-files list was to
edit your init file, remove the reference to the missing file and then
re-evaluae the variable. this is because you have decided to manage that
variable yourself using setq.

The other alternative is to remove the setq setting from your init file
and then set your agenda file list using customize. The critical point
is not to use both - one or the other.

Many people will use a combination of some things set by hand in their
init file and other things set using the customise interface. This is
fine but you must ensure you don't use both for the same thing.

In your case, because you are not use to configuring Emacs manually, I
would strongly recommend you stick to using the customise interface.
Later, when your more use to customising Emacs, you can move to doing
your customisation in your init file by hand (if you want/need to - many
never do and just use the customisation interface). The customisation
interface is great when your not use to Elisp and don't yet know how to
re-evaluate expressions etc. I know lots of users where the only thing
in their init file is the custom section. All of their customisation is
done using the custom interface and they are never required to write a
single line of elisp.

The org-agenda-files variable is also a little more complicated than
most configuration variables because org allows you to add/remove files
from that list interactively as well. For these interactive changes to
persist across sessions, Emacs has to store them somewhere and it uses
the custom section of your init file to do this. It cannot update your
manual setting with setq because that would require parsing and
modifying user controlled/written configuration code, which can be very
complicated and could be spread over many different files (some people
with large complex manual configurations will break them up into
separate files and include them using (reqire...) or load. This makes
updating such settings very dangerous. On the other hand, the custom
section is managed by Emacs and not modified by hand, so it can store
the updated list in that section safely, which means the changes will
persist across sessions.

for this reason, I would recommend using custom to set/modify your
agenda file list and copletely delete the (setq org-agenda-files...)
from your init file.

You might still consider how this works to be a bug because the way it
works is confusing. However, it is very difficult for Emacs to deal with
the situation where you have both manual configuration and custom
section configuration for the same thing. Emacs does what I think is the
sane things - gives priority to the custom section (actually, this can
also be changed, but lets not go down another rabbit hole).

--
Tim Cross

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> From: "Tim Cross" <theophilusx@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
>
> daniela-spit@gmx.it writes:
>
> >> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 5:46 AM
> >> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> >> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> >> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
> >>
> >> * daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-11-29 02:30]:
> >> > > What you see as a problem some see as a solution. For instance, it depends how many
> >> > > org-files you want to add to the agenda. Some users including me have 2
> >> > > or three files in  org-agenda-files so I never interact with this
> >> > > variable directly.
> >> >
> >> > I have many and they change quite frequently, depending on project.
> >> > So often torture emacs hard.  Have sent a bug-report about it.  Keen
> >> > for a change to go through.
> >>
> >> You may customize any Emacs variables yourself. Just define your
> >> agenda files yourself in your init file. Then do:
> >>
> >> {M-x customize-variables RET org-agenda-files RET} and erase what you
> >> find there.
> >>
> >> Anything before the `custom' section in your init file will be then
> >> defined by you and not by the built in system.
> >>
> >> In that case you should take care as user over time not to use
> >> org-agenda-file-to-front command as that would again start adding
> >> agend files to init file. Then just use your own settings.
> >>
> >> As long as you have your own settings hard coded you may erase the
> >> variable org-agenda-files
> >
> > That worries me because I do not want to change the behaviuor of Emacs
> > for users.  Otherwise when people ask for help they will become confused.
>
> Just a small clarification on the above directions.
>
> If you have *both* a settings in your emacs init file for
> org-agenda-files using (setq org-agenda-files...) and you have a line in
> your (custom ...) section, you should remove one of them to avoid
> confusion. In general, what is in the custom section will take
> preference as it is usually loaded last. If your going to remove the one
> in the custom section, run M-x customize-variable <ret> org-agenda-files
> <ret> and then select the options under the 'state' button to 'Erase
> Customisation', don't just erase the values in the 'Value Menu' box.

Emacs automatically introduced the custom, did not write it myself.

> I'm not sure if I would classify the problem you ran into as a bug or
> user error. Emacs has 2 main ways to customise behaviour. either you can
> do it manually using things like (setq ...) in your init file, *OR* you
> can use the customize interface to make the changes using a high level
> 'widget' base UI. This all works pretty well unless you try to use both
> methods to customise the same thing.

Yes, if one uses Emacs Customise Behaviour, that's what happens.  But I was
not using that.  Helping people using elisp must be encouraged, because it
opens up many possibilities.

> In your case, the correct way to update the org-agenda-files list was to
> edit your init file, remove the reference to the missing file and then
> re-evaluae the variable. this is because you have decided to manage that
> variable yourself using setq.
>
> The other alternative is to remove the setq setting from your init file
> and then set your agenda file list using customize. The critical point
> is not to use both - one or the other.
>
> Many people will use a combination of some things set by hand in their
> init file and other things set using the customise interface. This is
> fine but you must ensure you don't use both for the same thing.
>
> In your case, because you are not use to configuring Emacs manually, I
> would strongly recommend you stick to using the customise interface.
> Later, when your more use to customising Emacs, you can move to doing
> your customisation in your init file by hand (if you want/need to - many
> never do and just use the customisation interface). The customisation
> interface is great when your not use to Elisp and don't yet know how to
> re-evaluate expressions etc. I know lots of users where the only thing
> in their init file is the custom section. All of their customisation is
> done using the custom interface and they are never required to write a
> single line of elisp.
>
> The org-agenda-files variable is also a little more complicated than
> most configuration variables because org allows you to add/remove files
> from that list interactively as well. For these interactive changes to
> persist across sessions, Emacs has to store them somewhere and it uses
> the custom section of your init file to do this. It cannot update your
> manual setting with setq because that would require parsing and
> modifying user controlled/written configuration code, which can be very
> complicated and could be spread over many different files (some people
> with large complex manual configurations will break them up into
> separate files and include them using (reqire...) or load. This makes
> updating such settings very dangerous. On the other hand, the custom
> section is managed by Emacs and not modified by hand, so it can store
> the updated list in that section safely, which means the changes will
> persist across sessions.
>
> for this reason, I would recommend using custom to set/modify your
> agenda file list and copletely delete the (setq org-agenda-files...)
> from your init file.
>
> You might still consider how this works to be a bug because the way it
> works is confusing. However, it is very difficult for Emacs to deal with
> the situation where you have both manual configuration and custom
> section configuration for the same thing. Emacs does what I think is the
> sane things - gives priority to the custom section (actually, this can
> also be changed, but lets not go down another rabbit hole).

> The other alternative is to remove the setq setting from your init file
> and then set your agenda file list using customize. The critical point
> is not to use both - one or the other.

> --
> Tim Cross
>
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jeremie Juste]

Hello,

>> If you have *both* a settings in your emacs init file for
>> org-agenda-files using (setq org-agenda-files...) and you have a line in
>> your (custom ...) section, you should remove one of them to avoid
>> confusion. In general, what is in the custom section will take
>> preference as it is usually loaded last. If your going to remove the one
>> in the custom section, run M-x customize-variable <ret> org-agenda-files
>> <ret> and then select the options under the 'state' button to 'Erase
>> Customisation', don't just erase the values in the 'Value Menu' box.
>
> Emacs automatically introduced the custom, did not write it myself.
>
I fear I might have been the source of the confusion by suggesting
the command (org-agenda-file-to-front), which has triggered another
definition of org-agenda-file in the custom-set-variables section.  I
hadn't realized fully the consequences.

I apologize for this and I hope that it won't turn any user
against each other. I must confess that among the mailing-lists I have
subscribed to, this mailing list is the most cordial.

Yes using both the `custom-set-variables` section and setting variable
can introduce confusion. I am sure many of us have fallen prey to
(counting me many times).

At the same time it is convenient for some people to be able to
customize easily some variable and some users might use
custom-set-variables exclusively.

We just need to understand the consequences of it and I guess many
users of emacs eventually come to do with these two options and even use
the best of both world modifying directly variables in the init files
and using the custom-set-variables section.

It is a bug? I wouldn't say so. Can we explain to (new) users better
about it? Probably.

Best regards,
Jeremie

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Tim Cross]

Jeremie Juste <jeremiejuste@gmail.com> writes:

> Hello,
>
>>> If you have *both* a settings in your emacs init file for
>>> org-agenda-files using (setq org-agenda-files...) and you have a line in
>>> your (custom ...) section, you should remove one of them to avoid
>>> confusion. In general, what is in the custom section will take
>>> preference as it is usually loaded last. If your going to remove the one
>>> in the custom section, run M-x customize-variable <ret> org-agenda-files
>>> <ret> and then select the options under the 'state' button to 'Erase
>>> Customisation', don't just erase the values in the 'Value Menu' box.
>>
>> Emacs automatically introduced the custom, did not write it myself.
>>
> I fear I might have been the source of the confusion by suggesting
> the command (org-agenda-file-to-front), which has triggered another
> definition of org-agenda-file in the custom-set-variables section.  I
> hadn't realized fully the consequences.
>
> I apologize for this and I hope that it won't turn any user
> against each other. I must confess that among the mailing-lists I have
> subscribed to, this mailing list is the most cordial.
>
> Yes using both the `custom-set-variables` section and setting variable
> can introduce confusion. I am sure many of us have fallen prey to
> (counting me many times).
>
> At the same time it is convenient for some people to be able to
> customize easily some variable and some users might use
> custom-set-variables exclusively.
>
> We just need to understand the consequences of it and I guess many
> users of emacs eventually come to do with these two options and even use
> the best of both world modifying directly variables in the init files
> and using the custom-set-variables section.
>
> It is a bug? I wouldn't say so. Can we explain to (new) users better
> about it? Probably.
>

I think your right. In addition, based on more info which has come out
on the list, I agree with what Kyle has pointed out re: variable to tell
org to ignore missing files. This needs to be referenced in the manual
and the documentation for org-agenda-files.

If nobody else has done it by the time I have finished my current
priorities, I will put a patch together to add such references. This
won't be for a couple of weeks.

--
Tim Cross

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

Jeremie,

Have you ever tried to send an entry of org-capture to two files?


> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 12:18 AM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 22:45, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> >
> > Many thanks for helping me.  I would not have got to this stage without
> > your helpful commands and checks.
> You are welcome ;-)
> >
> > Getting used to a problem to the extent of depending on it is not a good system.
> > Emacs should follow what the user demands by default, with perhaps the option
> > for the user to change that behaviour.  But it is the user that should demand
> > it.  In situations when Emacs gets to do something so drastic, it should inform
> > the user what is happening and put that information in a log file.
> What you see as a problem some see as a solution. For instance, it depends how many
> org-files you want to add to the agenda. Some users including me have 2
> or three files in  org-agenda-files so I never interact with this
> variable directly.
>
> It seams that we cannot make everyone happy. :-), but we can hack our
> way out of it together ;-). That is one of the purpose of this mailing
> list I believe.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Jeremie
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[Jean Louis]

* daniela-spit@gmx.it <daniela-spit@gmx.it> [2020-11-29 02:37]:
> Jeremie,
> 
> Have you ever tried to send an entry of org-capture to two files?

Based on your use case I am thinking if I ever had use to "capture"
task in multiple files. I was mostly using tasks that are in my
database, not necessarily Org related. So I have groups of tasks:

- normal tasks, managed in the database, curated, can be separate or
otherwise relate to people, organizations, cases, opportunities,

- quick tasks, normally one key capture from email, without
description and nothing else, it just helps to connect to email
message as I know what is to be done from person's name and subject

- administrative tasks, which belong to well organized project
planning,

- Org tasks which are worse among the above groups as they are not
structured as database tasks.

- various text file based tasks

All tasks from above groups at my side are assigned to somebody. They
may be assigned to me personally by default, often they are assigned
to other people.

Sometimes they are assigned to a group. In that case my Org header
could look something like this:

#+PROPERTY: ASSIGNED_ALL Ezekiel James TeamTZ Mark

And TeamTZ is group of people. 

Then I have properties:

***** TODO Alfeo CB Officer <2018-10-02 Tue>
      SCHEDULED: <2019-07-01 Mon>
      :PROPERTIES:
      :ASSIGNED: James
      :ID:       c9d68b39-f01e-4624-929a-a25fd1866183
      :CREATED:  [2018-10-06 Sat 09:56]
      :END:

This way the task becomes mine, maybe for supervision, but James is
handling the task. This is somewhat similar to putting task in two
files, one for me, one for James, but as there is relation in the
heading I need not keep it in two files.

Deriving from idea of making relations then I think on your use case.

You need to have a main list of tasks while some tasks could be done
TODAY. And you wish to filter those that could be done today.

One way could be in using properties as above. You could just assign property:

*** Task
    :PROPERTIES:
    :TASK-TYPE: QUICK
    :END:

By using property you could use agenda feature to find those with that
property.

Other way to assign attribute to task could be by using tags:

*** Task                          :QUICK:

By using both methods you could easily filter out with agenda those
tasks you could be completing today.

Jean

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

In my init file I have my own code, however emacs is insisting on
adding the following.  This means that my settings are being
disregarded.  How can I stop emacs doing this?

(custom-set-variables
 ;; custom-set-variables was added by Custom.
 ;; If you edit it by hand, you could mess it up, so be careful.
 ;; Your init file should contain only one such instance.
 ;; If there is more than one, they won't work right.
 '(org-agenda-files
   '("~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org" "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org")))


> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 9:11 PM
> From: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> To: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
> I've made some progress, I am getting
>
> File: ~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org
>
> This happens even though I removed the file name from org-agenda-files
> in my init file, and restarted another session.
>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:55 PM
> > From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> > To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> > Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> > Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
> >
> > ||On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 20:16, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > > Something is wrong.  Now I have done as follows, but Org Agenda still shows
> > > meetings.
> >
> > You have two checks to make,
> >
> > 1. what is the content of org-agenda-files?
> > 2. refresh the org-agenda with the command (org-agenda-redo) usually
> > bounded to r in the org-agenda-mode
> >
> > HTH,
> > Jeremie
> >
> >
> > ||On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 20:16, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > > Something is wrong.  Now I have done as follows, but Org Agenda still shows
> > > meetings.
> > >
> > > (setq org-agenda-files
> > >    '("~/02histr/gadmin/todo.rcl.org"
> > >      "~/02histr/gadmin/writing.rcl.org"
> > >      "~/02histr/gadmin/health.rcl.org"))
> > >
> > > ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/meeting.rcl.org"
> > > ;;     "~/02histr/gadmin/household.rcl.org"
> > >
> > >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 8:01 PM
> > >> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> > >> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> > >> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
> > >>
> > >> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 19:43, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > >> > Why does Agenda not simply honour the init file.  Many fume something awful
> > >> > when you question them on how things are done.
> > >> It turns out that it does.
> > >>
> > >> This what I have in my input file
> > >>
> > >> (setq org-agenda-files
> > >>    '("~/Documents/academic-project.org" "~/Documents/when-tired.org"
> > >>    "~/Documents/work.org" "~/Documents/refile.org"
> > >>    "~/Documents/todo.org"))
> > >>
> > >> just be careful about the custom-set-variables section. I you use
> > >> the command (org-agenda-file-to-front) to add files to org-agenda-files,
> > >> then if I'm not mistaken the org-agenda-files will get redefined in the
> > >> custom-set-variables section.
> > >>
> > >> HTH,
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Jeremie
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Jeremie Juste
> >
>
>

Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files

[daniela-spit]

What can I put in my init file for Org Agenda to honour
my emacs init setup?

> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 6:41 PM
> From: "Jeremie Juste" <jeremiejuste@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "Org-Mode mailing list" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding Org Files to org-agenda-files
>
>
> Hello,
>
> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 17:54, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Yes, it shows.  That was a good test.
> This is encouraging. So the problem might be in the wild card expansion
> if you execute the following command do you get all the files you expect?
>
> (file-expand-wildcards "~/02histr/gadmin/household*.org")
>
>
> || On Saturday, 28 Nov 2020 at 18:01, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > Have now removed /02histr/gadmin/household*.org and the entries are still there.  Does
> > it save things and got to reset something?  It has become very confusing.
>
> The agenda files get stored in the variable org-agenda-files.
> So if you do C-h v org-agenda-files then you will see all the file that
> the agenda will show. If you want to remove a file you have two
> options.
>
> 1. modify the org-agenda-files directly
> 2. or go the file you want to remove and M-x org-remove-file .
>    you can have more info by executing  this command - (info "(org) Agenda Files")
>
> Of course, Don't forget to refresh the agenda. A trap I have often
> fallen into  :-)
>
> HTH,
> Jeremie
>