Matt Lundin <
address@hidden> writes:
> Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <
address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On the other hand, most of this could be achieved by using the agenda
>> view and other org filtering features, and still keep a list of
>> projects, sub-projects and next-actions, all in one, like:
>>
>> (Always ordered by priority)
>>
>> * Projects and Next Actions
>> ** A project/outcome :PROJECT:
>> *** TODO Do something :HOME:
>> *** A subproject :PROJECT:
>> **** TODO Do something! :HOME:
>> *** TODO Do something else :OFFICE:
>>
>> Then, in the agenda, I can filter by HOME / OFFICE or TODO and would
>> have a flat list of actions too.
>>
>> More configuration, but more you get, when you view the Projects and
>> Next Actions list, the information of to which project this next action
>> belongs, which might not be that important, as I'm interested on doing,
>> not reviewing the landscape all the time, but could be useful sometimes
>> (when the action is not specific enough you can't tell the related
>> outcome).
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>
> Are you looking for us to convince you to organize your files by
> project? :)
>
> IMO, how the user chooses to organize his/her files is a moot point,
> since the magic of org-mode lies in the agenda. My agenda files consist
> of several thematic files (currently 21), each containing a variety of
> notes, projects, todos, etc. In the end, the organization of these files
> doesn't matter, since org-mode's agenda commands do a fantastic job of
> presenting me with clean lists of all my todos, while org-refile allows
> me easily to move items to different files and or subheadings.
>
> I prefer this method because it allows me to jump to rich contextual
> information from the agenda. For me, keeping next actions and projects
> separate within the org files would eliminate a major strength of
> org-mode and reduplicate what the agenda already does. But to each
> his/her own! :)