Re: [O] Sticky Agenda buffer: Announcement and request for testing

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Bastien,

of course this is how I'd like it to work as well, but this was too hard for 
the moment... :(

On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:33 AM, Bastien address@hidden wrote:

> Hi Carsten and Max,
> 
> "Dominik, Carsten" <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> already in Januar, Max Mikhanosha had published the first
>> version of his code to implement multiple agenda buffers.  I have
>> worked with him over the last few weeks, and we think that
>> it is now quite stable.
> 
> I've been trying the agenda-sticky branch a few times now and I love
> this feature -- thanks a lot!
> 
> One request: I often use buffer restrictions in combination with agenda
> views.  For example, I restrict to a first-level tree then run my daily
> agenda on that tree.
> 
> In this case, using sticky agenda is a bit confusing because I expect 
> a completely different agenda view while using the same agenda key (none
> of the items in a tree are part of another subtree.)
> 
> Could we have an option allowing a set of rules (or a set of agenda
> views) for which we want the rebuilding to be done automatically?  I
> would turn on this for my daily agenda views.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Bastien