Re: [O] "constellations" Re: relative deadlines

[J. David Boyd]

Tom Baker <address@hidden> writes:

> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:05:39 -0500
> From: address@hidden (J. David Boyd)
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [O] relative deadlines
>
> J. David Boyd < address@hidden > wrote on Dec 9:
>> Jeffrey Brent McBeth <address@hidden> writes:
>> > From time to time (each time I delve into using org-mode for
> deadlines
>> > before my habits fall apart), I find the desire to have some form
> of
>> > relative deadlines. By this I mean, that there are often sequences
> of
>> > tasks that I know the time required to complete and when things
> are
>> > due. These tasks may repeat (usually do).
>> >
>> > It would be awful helpful to me, but I would guess few others, as
> a
>> > search didn't find much, for there to be some annotation like this
>> > (example is farcical, notation is notional)
>> >
>> > * Go on date
>> > DEADLINE: <2014-12-25>
>> > ** Ask Girl #<-3w>#
>> > ** Wash Hair #<-2w>#
>> > ** Make Money #<-1w2d>#
>> > ** Get in Car #<-0d>#
>> > ** Call her back #<+1w>#
>> >
>> > that in the agenda view would show as a sequence of tasks with the
> following dates
>> > Go on date <2014-12-25>
>> > Ask Girl <2014-12-04>
>> > Wash Hair <2014-12-11>
>> > Make Money <2014-12-16>
>> > Get in Car <2014-12-25>
>> > Call her back <2015-01-01>
>> >
>> > I have a python function that can take a stripped down org file
> and
>> > places an active date after each #<block># (or inactive after
>> > #[block]#), that I hacked up today to see if it would really be as
>> > useful as I thought, but I keep thinking that someone somewhere
> must
>> > have scratched this itch elsewhere, and having to partially parse
> org
>> > in python and modify the text rather than having my agenda smart
>> > enough to figure it out gives me pause...
>> >
>> > If nobody have better ideas, are the block delimiters I'm using
> going
>> > to conflict with some other feature in org that I'm just not using
>> > yet?
>> >
>> > The main functuionality I'm stumbling toward is having an easily
>> > moveable end date (so replacing the block with absolute dates is a
>> > nono).
>> >
>> > Thanks for your attention,
>> > Jeffrey McBeth
>> 
>> I think like that as well. I know when some _thing_ has to be done.
> Then I
>> start thinking of all the support items in relative terms to the
> main one.
>> 
>> You should add this to org mode, if able. It would be a nice
> addition...
>> 
>> Dave
>
> The relative deadline part should be implemented, I agree.
>
> I also like the collection of intermediate tasks. Does Emacs have a
> name for that? Because I used to call that a "constellation" of
> deadlines, and if we have the relative timestamps, the constellation
> would be easy to implement on the fly.
>
> This addresses Jeffrey's original intention, you see, if I explain. If
> I have an appointment at 4pm and I know it is a 40m drive AND I may
> need to get dressed formally (that takes 30m), then I really can't
> tell the Org system "Notify me at 4pm". Instead, I *need* to have it
> say, "Get me driving by 320pm, and if I need to dress up, then get
> that started by 250pm". Really, for me, the "appointment at 4" starts
> much earlier. Also, keep track of the fact that I will probably come
> right back, so if the appointment ends at 530, then I won't get back
> until 610pm.
>
> Now if Jeffrey wants to schedule something like this BUT needs to take
> into account that he already has a 6pm appointment, then his request
> for an "easily movable" end is reasonable. When he is setting up the
> appointment, Org needs to tell him, as soon as possible, that there is
> a conflict, and so when they suggest "330pm instead of 4pm?" he can
> try that.
>
> Tom

Yup, exactly what I would like.  I hate modern appointment calendars, as they
have no means of accomplishing this...

Dave