Version 0.3.0 of package Denote has just been released in GNU ELPA. You can now find it in M-x package-list RET.
Denote describes itself as: Simple notes with an efficient file-naming scheme More at https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/denote.html Recent NEWS: ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ CHANGE LOG OF DENOTE ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ This document contains the release notes for each tagged commit on the project's main git repository: <https://git.sr.ht/~protesilaos/denote>. The newest release is at the top. For further details, please consult the manual: <https://protesilaos.com/emacs/denote>. Version 0.3.0 on 2022-07-11 ═══════════════════════════ ⁃ Fixed how references are analysed to produce the backlinks' buffer. This should resolve the issue that some users faced where the backlinks would not be produced. The previous implementation would not yield the appropriate results if (i) the value of the user option `denote-directory' was a "project" per the built-in project.el and (ii) the link to the given entry was from a subdirectory. In short, the references were sometimes returned as relative file paths, whereas they should always be absolute. Thanks to Jean-Philippe Gagné Guay for the feedback in issue 42 over at the GitHub mirror: <https://github.com/protesilaos/denote/pull/42>. [ Jean-Philippe has assigned copyright to the Free Software Foundation. It is a prerequisite for contributing to core Emacs and/or any package distributed via the official GNU ELPA. ] ⁃ Addressed a regression in the function `denote-directory' (this is the function that normalises the variable of the same name) which prevented it from returning an expanded file path. This too contributed to problems with the backlinking facility. Thanks to Jean-Philippe Gagné Guay for the contribution in pull request 44 over at the GitHub mirror: <https://github.com/protesilaos/denote/pull/44>. Also thanks to user pRot0ta1p for the relevant feedback in issue 43 (also on the mirror): <https://github.com/protesilaos/denote/issues/43>. More thanks to Alfredo Borrás, Benjamin Kästner, and Sven Seebeck for their comments in a related thread on the mailing list: <https://lists.sr.ht/~protesilaos/denote/%3CCA73E705-1194-4324-9962-70708C4C72E5%40zoho.eu%3E>. These discussions showed we had a problem, which we managed to identify. ⁃ Introduced the user option `denote-prompts' (read its doc string or the relevant entry in the manual). It governs how the standard `denote' command for creating new notes will behave in interactive usage. By default, `denote' prompts for a title and keywords. With `denote-prompts', the command can also ask for a file type (per `denote-file-type'), subdirectory of the `denote-directory', and a specific date+time. Prompts occur in the order they are specified. Furthermore, the `denote-prompts' can be set to values which do not include the title and keywords. This means that the resulting file names can be any of those permutations: ┌──── │ DATE.EXT │ DATE--TITLE.EXT │ DATE__KEYWORDS.EXT └──── Recall that Denote's standard file-naming scheme is defined as follows (read the manual for the details): ┌──── │ DATE--TITLE__KEYWORDS.EXT └──── For our purposes, Denote will work perfectly fine for linking and backlinking, even if file names do not include the `TITLE' and `KEYWORDS' fields. However, the user is advised to consider the implications on usability: notes without a descriptive title and/or useful keywords may be hard to filter and practically impossible to manage at scale. File names without such information should at least be added to subdirectories which themselves have a descriptive name. At any rate, Denote does not have strong opinions about one's workflow. The standard file name is the culmination of years of experience. Consider the `denote-prompts' the affirmative answer to the question "Can keywords be optional?" as posed by Jack Baty on the mailing list: <https://lists.sr.ht/~protesilaos/denote/%3C8D392BC3-980A-4E5B-9480-D6A00BE8279F%40baty.net%3E>. Thanks to Jean-Philippe Gagné Guay for the original contribution in … …