[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Orgmode] Interpretation of priorities in org-mode

From: Bastien
Subject: Re: [Orgmode] Interpretation of priorities in org-mode
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:22:36 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/23.0.0 (gnu/linux)

Hi Piotr,

"Piotr Zielinski" <address@hidden> writes:

> I've been recently experimenting with a different interpretation of
> priorities: #B = tasks to do today, #C = tasks to do this week, #D =
> all the rest, default. #A is reserved at the moment. One good thing
> about this system is a clearer interpretation of priorities.

When i first started using priorities, i was also leaned to misuse them
as you describe, and my file ended up with top priorities everywhere.

After a while, i discover it was better:

1. not to upgrade priorities too easily;
2. not trying to make them do an other job than their job.

Let me explain myself a bit.

The #1 advice seems obvious but it is hard to stick to it. One problem
comes from Org-mode itself, because it makes it soooo easy to upgrade a
priority that you often feel like upgrading one -- instead of completing
the task under it :)

Another problem comes from the fact that priority are dependant from
each others. I think it's better to have something around 10%-[#A],
20%-[#B], and 30%-[#C], and changing the priority of a few tasks might
disturb the balance. 

So here comes the #2 advice. Because i noticed that the reflex of
upgrading too many [#B] to [#A] was just a way to make my Org files
"say" something else (yes, my Org files *speak*), like "Do it next!"
(which should be said by a TODO keyword) or "Do it today, you lazy 
bum!" (which could be said by the agenda...)

So i try to keep a reasonable number of high-prioritized tasks and if i
feel like i start to "upgrade" indecently, then i think twice about why
i'm doing this.

The thing is that i mainly use the priority system to have a useful
display of the agenda view:

(setq org-agenda-sorting-strategy
      '((agenda time-up priority-down)
        (todo priority-down)
        (tags priority-down)))

(Okay, all of this is very nice but here is the truth: i got *tons* of
chaotic tasks under misused priorities... but at least you get the way 
i would like to use them :)

PS: just thinking: another way to use priorities could be to make lower
tasks *dependant* (in they order of execution) from higher tasks. But i
would prefer to make this dependance visible by using the display order,
i.e. one task "after" another.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]