Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes: F> David Masterson <dsmaster...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I'm not sure I understand 'sequence' and 'type' in org-todo-keywords. >> In particular, I can only think of the following simple sequence as >> being possible in org-todo-keywords: >> >> TODO -> IN-PROCESS -> DONE >> >> If I want to add in (say) WAITING, the graph (represented as a table) >> becomes: >> >> i\o | TODO | IN-P | WAIT | DONE >> TODO | N | Y | N | N >> IN-P | N | N | Y | Y >> WAIT | N | Y | N | N >> DONE | N | N | N | N > > The main purpose of the keyword sequences is working on tasks in steps. > When a keyword is a part of sequence, you can just use S-<right> > S-<left> to progress the task. For example: > > NEXT -> DOING -> REVIEW -> DONE > > Such sequence is only making sense when everything goes "as usual" with > a task and you do not want to think about which keyword to assign. > > The transition IN-PROGRESS -> WAIT is something you have to decide > consciously. Org cannot just read you mind and change IN-PROGRESS to > WAIT. You will have set such transition manually. > > For your table, you can try something like > > #+TODO: WAIT IN-PROCESS > #+TODO: TODO IN-PROCESS | DONE
This is on a per-file basis, correct? This can't be done in org-todo-keywords? > Note, however, that moving S-<left> will be ambiguous. Ambiguous or not possible? Perhaps there should be a sparse table var to represent the table above and drop sequence? More flexible? Org-Edna? -- David Masterson
