Hi! > -----Original Message----- > From: Emacs-orgmode <emacs-orgmode-bounces+gustav=whil...@gnu.org> On Behalf > Of Roland Everaert > Sent: den 16 december 2019 12:26 > To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > Subject: Re: [Idea] Org Collections > > +1 for this idea. > > You speak about one document used by multiple collections, how do you > plan to manage that from a file system point of view?
The idea was to let the user define the scope of each collection herself. Similar to how an agenda is defined today (Maybe in the same way even?). Most simple configuration would be to let a collection be one folder. But in the end it would be up to the imagination of and usefulness for the user. Having one document in multiple collections wouldn't be any issue because the collections are only pointing to locations of files in the filesystem. And if creating overlap between collections sounds dumb then it's a simple choice by the user to not do it! > How will be organized a collection, still from the FS point of view? Maybe the comments above answer that as well? > As some are delving into the abyss of sementic, I propose aspects > instead of collections or contexts. Ultimately we are trying to manage > various aspects of our life, by splitting those aspects into files or > diretories and what not. So, if it is the intent of your idea, the term > aspect seems more appropriate than collection or context IMHO. Many words could work. Context, Project, Group, Aspect, Areas, etc. I first thought of the name "project" to match the Projectile package. But I think collection is a better concept here. It lets the user think not of how it should be used but rather of what it consists. Which is a collection of files (and settings). That collection can ofc. be used for project, as aspects, or be seen as contexts or areas. So in my mind collection is the broader, more applicable term. It has less subjective meaning attached to how this functionality could be used. It IS a collection but can be USED as aspects, for projects, etc. What do you say? đ > > Did you think about the specific UI of aspects management? > Proposal of UI I particularly like: > - Mu4E > - forge/magit Not really.. Except I agree with you on magit. The other I haven't used. > > How to keep track of all those aspects? My first thought was to define them in a simple list. > > I will surely have more to say, but, as of know I am at work. > > Regards, > > Roland. Thanks for your comments! Regards Gustav
