Re: [Orgmode] FR: Repeated time stamp, jumping from current time

2008-03-07 Thread Carsten Dominik


On Mar 2, 2008, at 5:52 AM, Wanrong Lin wrote:


Hi,

Right now we can have a repeated time stamp like this:

* TODO Do this every month
SCHEDULED: 2008-03-01 Sat +1m

If I am late and mark the above done on 2008-03-05, the time stamp  
will automatically jump to 2008-04-01. This is very useful for  
things like paying monthly bills.


However, for some tasks, it would make more sense to jump from the  
date when it is marked done, not from when it is scheduled to be  
done. An example is changing my furnace filter. I am supposed to  
change it once a month, but if I am late for 10 days, the next date  
to change should be 30 days away, not 20 days away.


Maybe we can use a syntax like this to indicate that:

2008-03-01 Sat +=1m


This is a good idea, along with Rainers version of it.

I have just pushed a change into the git repo which has two new
ways to write the repeater cookie:

++1w  will shift the date by at least one week, but also by as
  many weeks as needed to make sure that the next date lies
  in the future.

.+1w  will shift the date to 1 week from the moment when you mark the
  entry DONE.

Thanks for these useful ideas, Wanrong and Rainer.

- Carsten



___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode


Re: [Orgmode] FR: Repeated time stamp, jumping from current time

2008-03-02 Thread Piotr Zielinski
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Wanrong Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi,

  Right now we can have a repeated time stamp like this:

  * TODO Do this every month
   SCHEDULED: 2008-03-01 Sat +1m

  If I am late and mark the above done on 2008-03-05, the time stamp will
  automatically jump to 2008-04-01. This is very useful for things like
  paying monthly bills.

  However, for some tasks, it would make more sense to jump from the date
  when it is marked done, not from when it is scheduled to be done.

Here are my thoughts on the issue:

I think of SCHEDULED as my personal plan to start doing something at a
specified time.  In this interpretation, having something scheduled
for the past does not make sense, or more precisely, it should be
functionally equivalent to scheduling it for now (except that it
reminds you that you're behind schedule).  Therefore, I'd vote for
jumping from the current date, not from the time in the SCHEDULED
timestamp.

Your example of paying a bill is, in my view, a DEADLINE, an
externally imposed requirement.  Since whomever imposed the deadline
on you does not care about your personal scheduling, the jumping in
deadlines should be from the time indicated in the timestamp.

Thanks,
Piotr

 An
  example is changing my furnace filter. I am supposed to change it once a
  month, but if I am late for 10 days, the next date to change should be
  30 days away, not 20 days away.

  Maybe we can use a syntax like this to indicate that:

  2008-03-01 Sat +=1m

  Any comments? Thank you.

  Wanrong



  ___
  Emacs-orgmode mailing list
  Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
  Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
  http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode



___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode


[Orgmode] FR: Repeated time stamp, jumping from current time

2008-03-01 Thread Wanrong Lin

Hi,

Right now we can have a repeated time stamp like this:

* TODO Do this every month
 SCHEDULED: 2008-03-01 Sat +1m

If I am late and mark the above done on 2008-03-05, the time stamp will 
automatically jump to 2008-04-01. This is very useful for things like 
paying monthly bills.


However, for some tasks, it would make more sense to jump from the date 
when it is marked done, not from when it is scheduled to be done. An 
example is changing my furnace filter. I am supposed to change it once a 
month, but if I am late for 10 days, the next date to change should be 
30 days away, not 20 days away.


Maybe we can use a syntax like this to indicate that:

2008-03-01 Sat +=1m

Any comments? Thank you.

Wanrong



___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode