trs> [smaller files] My agenda is not cluttered. it is not clear to me why more smaller files and shallower trees in the outline would improve the agenda. sounds good though.
tim> naming convention ... to determine what is included this is also what i do. org-agenda-files is just set at startup according to basename pattern. On 3/4/21, Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > > -- The Kafka Pandemic Please learn what misopathy is. https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html
