Hi Daniel, Daniel Bausch <bau...@dvs.tu-darmstadt.de> writes:
> Just do not touch the IDs of items not currently visible or add the name > of the agenda to which this applies and have an AGENDA_BEFORE per agenda. Mhh... looks like overengineering to me. >> I think we should start thinking from the existing functionalities >> we have with `org-agenda-sorting-strategy', which is already quite >> rich (30 strategies!) and flexible. >> >> But I cannot think of something that would match the OP request >> at the moment. > > Then maybe a 31st is required ;-) > > I already use some of those 30 strategies, but am also not 100% > satisfied with the result. Global priorities are somewhat hard to > define. It is mentally easier to just say, hey this is more important > than that. The sequence in the Org file can reflect the order of > insertion or the typical order of processing within a tree of projects. > But when steps from different projects mix within one daily agenda, it > is not always possible to prioritize project A over project B. > Repeatedly exchanging project A and project B in the file is cumbersome > and if there are two projects from different files, one would need to > adjust the org-agenda-files variable. > > I often have more TODOs on the daily agenda, than I will be able to > resolve on that day. Deciding on the next most important one everytime > when switching the task makes me tired. Doing things in a random order > feels dangerous. > > How do you decide what to do next? I bind `=' to a custom agenda command that will find out what to do next depending on the Emacs context. For example, when reading emails, C-c a = will find next emails to process; when in *.el C-c a = will find next Emacs/Org bugs to deal with; when in my big garden.org file, C-c a = will find the next useless stuff I want to watch/read. (See `org-agenda-custom-commands-contexts' if you don't use it yet.) I don't use clocking that much, but I do set efforts nonetheless, because I like using `org-agenda-max-effort' in agenda views: this way I'm sure the agenda is not cluttered with tasks I didn't care enough about to set an effort for them. And above all, I try to discipline myself not setting to many "NEXT" tasks. First my notion of "NEXT" was "Yeah, I can do this quickly!", now it is more like "This *needs* to be done next", obviously a small set. So as you see, I don't need too much fancy sorting in the agenda because I try to keep my agenda very short. The need for fancy sorting tells that agendas are too big, and sorting will only help, not solve this problem. 2 cents of course, -- Bastien
