TRS-80 <lists.trs...@isnotmyreal.name> writes:
> On 2021-03-03 16:59, Samuel Wales wrote: > I have come to similar conclusion about "don't let org files get too > big." Besides agenda speed, I think it is just easier to > conceptualize things when each file covers only a limited scope, trees > are more shallow, etc. > > So, lately (last year or more), I have been trying a "many small (up > to perhaps medium)" instead of "few big" files approach (along with > some custom tooling) and it has been working /a lot/ better for me. I > really feel on top of things for the first time in a long time. My > agenda is not cluttered. I can focus on important things, while not > losing track of the rest, etc. > I agree with this. I have a similar approach. I consider the file system and org files to be the initial 'structure' and have many smaller files rather than a couple of very large ones. Only a subset of files play a role in the agenda (I'm still experimenting with two different approaches for this - one uses a couple of functions which can dynamically change the agenda list and the other uses a naming convention which is used as the basis of a search to determine what is included in the agenda. Final rsult will likely be a combination). My use pattern also constantly evolves as my requirements and priorities change. It is and probably always will be, a work in progress! -- Tim Cross
