Re: Emacs inserts hardwired org-agenda-files variable, overwriting user options

[Ihor Radchenko]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> Do you mean this:
>
> ** DONE Objective
>    CLOSED: [2020-12-13 Sun 20:00]
> *** TODO [#B] Step to do 1
> *** TODO Step to do 2
>
> when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is true I can still say DONE for
> Objective above. I have mentioned it today already. Maybe it works on
> your side, it does not work here. Do I do something wrong? I am on
> development Emacs version and it does not enforce under emacs -Q

>> I cannot reproduce what you observe. Also, one can forcefully change
>> todo state to done even when org-enforce-todo-dependencies is set to
>> TRUE. To do it, C-u C-u C-u C-c C-t needs to be used instead of C-c C-t
>> for setting the todo state.
>
> I can observe in emacs -Q from development version.
>
> So you say when you try to close senior heading that you cannot close
> it? I can when that variable is true or nil, do you think it is bug?
>
> I can give you access to Emacs over remote ssh and you can try because
> if it is bug, it is serious for those other thinkers but me.

I just looked into this more. Most likely you were trying to set this
variable manually. To take effect, this variable should be set using
customisation interface, before loading org, or you may need to run M-x
org-reload.

> It looks like I am only one observing that. And especially me I do not
> like depending on Org mode to dictate how to close items. So when
> there is somebody else to join in the notion that is where feature is
> appropriate. Otherwise I consider Org rather made and designed for
> other way thinkers and doers, not for us who think from senior
> objectives as priorities where subordinate items should become
> redundant and not marked as "done".

org-mode is developed mostly be enthusiasts. Some popular features are
used by many different people using different workflows. Those features
get a lot of attention and become quite customisable. Other features,
are only used by their author and maybe a few other people who agree on
the way the feature is implemented. Naturally, these less commonly used
features are more biased towards their author's workflows. However, I
don't see why a patch improving org-mode flexibility would not be
welcome. 

> My personal list of for a day has 7 items currently. Not 250. Those
> are rather objectives, goals and purposes. Single items under
> objectives are well known actions to be done and need not be marked as
> TODO, but I can. My focus is on the meaning of what has to be done and
> I do not need to look into tags or properties. Your informational
> emails gave me to thinking so I have implemented it all.

I also find it helpful to combine the objective + a note about concrete
action to take on the objective. The concrete action helps to get
started on the objective without drowning myself into thinking (but not
doing) about all the things I need to do on that objective.

>> Note that you are also risking to complain about things that are
>> actually not a problem. Simply because you don't have a need to
>> investigate what is possible.
>
> Yes, some of those needs disappeared when I have seen so many
> obstacles. I did not use some features like org-agenda because it was
> in front of me what I have to do. Things were not scattered like Org
> manual advises and I disadvise. It is different paradigm approach and
> so for many needs I need not even investigate what is possible. I am
> interested in paradigms, approaches, methods but not in general in
> gluing things together which are not meant to be together.

Would you mind writing a paragraph or two to improve the "5 TODO Items"
section of the manual? At least, we can inform people that the ability
to scatter todo items all around the documents does not mean that it has
to be done.

> Jean