Re: One vs many directories

[Ihor Radchenko]

> Can I automated the execution of Babel code upon opening of the Org
> file?

Adding to other suggestions, you can always add a custom function to
org-mode-hook instead of playing with file-local variables.

> Then we comes to actual execution of tasks. How do we get reminded?
>
> Is the reminder only if I press {C-c a} for org-agenda? Do I need to
> do action to get reminded?

You can always configure Emacs to run agenda on startup. Just add a
command to your init file ;)

For automatic reminders, there is built-in org-notify.el or external
org-alert package (https://github.com/spegoraro/org-alert).

> Personal problem is that tasks are sparse and separate in various Org
> files and not centralized. I become dependent of org-agenda to do what
> I need but it never does what I need.

I agree that org-agenda has many issues that cannot be easily solved
because of its complexity. However, everything you describe (including
multi-occur) can also be achieved with org-ql
(https://github.com/alphapapa/org-ql) - analogue of SQL query language
for org-mode (with more optimisations in comparison with org-agenda). 

Best,
Ihor

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> * Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> [2020-11-23 08:43]:
>> >> I am wondering what you mean by Org's philosophy. Why would it have 
>> >> anything to do with directories?
>> >
>> > Org's philosophy is to have one or a handful of directories without
>> > nesting of directories.  Users are not expected to have their Org
>> > files in a deeply nested tree.  Org also prefers big files with large
>> > trees rather than lots of little files.
>> >
>> > By philosophy, I mean the dev consensus on the correct way to do
>> > things, and coded configuration and usability biases.
>> 
>> I believe that org support all possibilities. The user can decide to
>> keep many (possibly nested) org files, a few large org files, or
>> anywhere in between. There are several parallel feature sets allowing to
>> work in a single file as well as with a bunch of smaller files.
>
> Yes, sure, and I guess you mentioned some people have problems with
> many files. And I have no problem at all with many files as they are
> per subject separated, per person or per subject separated. They are
> not hyperlinked to each other, it is me who make system to hyperlink
> to files.
>
> Searching for Joe Doe, F4 and I am in Org file for Joe Doe. My
> personal TODO list need not really show the tasks assigned to Joe Doe,
> I could show only * TODO Joe Doe and when I click there then I can get
> all tasks for Joe Doe as new Org file.
>
> It means I am accessing hundreds of Org files from the meta level by
> using conceptual location backed by the database.
>
> Some people maybe access multiple Org files through Agenda, me I
> don't. Some items are "non existent" and I do not know how to ask
> agenda to refresh itself. This is not big deal as I do not access
> items throgh Agenda, though I find it very useful. 
>
> org-agenda is trying to put all tasks and notes from various files
> into one list and that is of course not so easy task considering that
> files can be anywhere on the file system and that they need to be
> "remembered". 
>
>> For a single file, the user can search headings with org-goto (without a
>> need to explicitly travel through all the nesting headline levels),
>> reveal only headings satisfying certain keyword/tag/any other search
>> criteria with org-sparse-tree, or built agenda views restricted to a
>> single file (or even subtree).
>
> M-x org-goto is useful feature to find headlines. And I never use it,
> just standard Emacs search is enough within a file. Meanings I am
> searching are often inside of the headline. And it is not my perosnal
> way locating things.
>
> Personally, I am using parts of Org, like specific headling to export
> it and to send to remote person, or to print the file as project and
> to bind it nicely.
>
> When I see repetitive action, for example that I have to send "Daily
> Report" template to a person by email, than I just bookmark that in
> Emacs with {C-x r m} under something that I think is the meaning of
> it. Then I forget about it. Next time when I need to send report, I am
> {C-x r b} and quickly completing it and then I am exporting and
> inserting into the email.
>
> In general I speak of subsets or sub-lists among lists. List of Org
> files is one list, list of headings within Org file is other list, and
> list of specific subject related headings or bookmarks to such is
> third subset of lists.
>
>> For multiple files located anywhere in the filesystem, there is always
>> org-refile capable of filing the information to proper place
>> searching deeply nested headlines with ease regardless of the file the
>> information is physically located in. Headlines from multiple files can
>> be grouped using agenda views for any given search criteria (showing
>> todo items or items for a single day/week is just a tiny subset of what
>> agenda can do).
>
> That may be useful for those who find it while my use case is
> different, here is how it is for me:
>
> ** TODO Heading [1/2] [50%]
>
> 1) [X] Do this
> 2) [ ] Do that
>
> that is my personal use case. I do not do things like:
>
> ** TODO Do this
>
> Description of the task
>
> And so far I know org-refile works on headings. It does not work on
> list items.
>
> Sometimes the task describes something that belongs to other file, I
> just kill and yank to other file. And I keep RCS revision control
> system of files.
>
> As user may have many various sparse tasks to do or notes that require
> action and attention in soonest future it is best to consolidate tasks
> into one centralized system.
>
> Such system should encompass all tasks or notes that require attention
> or action in soonest future and should offer constant reminders to
> user on what has to be done and when and which people are related to
> the task.
>
> When I mentioned "sparse tasks" I refer to my usage and handling of
> mess:
>
> 1) Bunch of Org files, org-agenda and Org mode tries to accommodate me
>    by consolidating everything into lists
>
> 2) There are hundreds of such tasks all over, Org tries to consolidate
>    it.
>
> 3) There are various tasks and actions to do that are not recorded in
>    Org files, those cannot be handled by Org.
>
> 4) There are database based Tasks in several groupings, some are just
>    tagged with TODO, some are recorded in actual action requiring
>    groups.
>
> Instead of attempting to be perfect by using Org files for me
> personally is best to consolidate all tasks in the database as such
> are related either to people mostly or to some subjects related to me
> personally which again belongs to "People".
>
> And Org file for people need not have a task there, it can be exported
> automatically into the Org.
>
> - when searching for Person Robert S., I locate person and press F4
>
> - Org file for that person is automatically created
>
> - heading * Tasks is automatically created and expanded there by using SQL
>
> Concept is here:
>
> * Tasks
>
> #+BEGIN_SRC sql :engine postgresql :exports results :results value raw 
> SELECT '** [[(todo ' || simpletodos_id || ')][TODO]] ' || 
> simpletodos_datecreated::date || ' ' ||
> simpletodos_name || E'\n\n' || simpletodos_description FROM simpletodos
> WHERE simpletodos_contacts = 23187;
> #+END_SRC
>
> #+RESULTS:
> ** [[(todo120)][TODO]] 2017-11-07 Do something
>
> Something I need to do. (THIS IS HEADING OR TASK DESCRIPTION).
>
> The SQL query need to defined only one time and not in the Org file,
> but in the program that creates the Org file for the user. Instead of
> the SQL query in the specific Org file it could be a simple Emacs
> expression that never changes such as (tasks-for-user)
>
> Then the SQL query generates the headings under #+RESULTS: and those
> headings come from centralized consolidated database of tasks.
>
> It is then interesting that this column of the database can include
> any kind of the mode that Emacs supports, it could include any kind of
> file, be it image, video or anything as long as such task is assigned
> to the user. It could include other Org files and collection of Org
> files or just description or database based whole Org file if
> necessary. It becomes very abstract and liberated from limits.
>
> That way I would be editing tasks on the meta level by clicking on
> TODO link. If task would be done and completed it could be shown in
> separate section of Org file related to user.
>
> Additional buttons can be automatically included such as:
>
> - All tasks for user -> Hyperlink to meta level consolidated TODO management
>
> - Add task for user
>
> - Re-assign from this user to other user
>
> That is using Org mode as viewer of various information, not only as
> handler of the information.
>
> The cruft with org-agenda is then removed as then by pressing F5 I get
> the list of all tasks and I could filter it how I wish. Which is
> similar to org-agenda. The list is coming from the database and is
> blazing fast.
>
> Then I can filter using helm or ivy completion or built-in completion:
>
> - I can simply type name of person related to the task, be it myself
>   or somebody else. Majority of "my" tasks are related to other
>   people. I search by people, sometimes by companies or organizations.
>
> - I can type subject name or tag, any tag that need not be defined in
>   single Org file and I find the task
>
> - then if task is related to the person, I could quickly jump into
>   persons meta report, from where there is Org files, other files,
>   picture links all summarized in the meta Org profile, similar like
>   FBI profiles we see on movies, one find the person's name and can
>   see anything about that person.
>
> - or I could delete the task, re-assign, modify the task. It becomes
>   semi-automatically modified in the Org file of the user.
>
> Can I automated the execution of Babel code upon opening of the Org
> file?
>
> When all tasks become centralized by any means, in my case in the
> central database, then Org files get liberated from tasks and become
> structural and relational. I can edit each task and I can always see
> the updated list of the tasks and relations from one object to the
> other. Hyperlinks get automatically created.
>
> Personal problem is that tasks are sparse and separate in various Org
> files and not centralized. I become dependent of org-agenda to do what
> I need but it never does what I need.
>
> Example is the need to relate task to people. Tasks are people related.
>
> Purchasing cloths for your daughter? People.
>
> Visiting museum? People related.
>
> Some people are in Kenya, I do not think always on them. But I might
> when I come there. Then I would write "Kenya" to get people I need to
> put attention on. If tasks are centralized I can quickly jump to list
> of Kenyan people.
>
> If tasks are not centralized I need to put some tag under all those
> people's files "Kenya" which is repetitive and error prone activity.
>
> And I get trapped into "Org mode" for years. Which I am now, I am
> trapped but it does not help me to manage things how I think.
>
> I do value org-agenda but it is large effort to make SQL query out of
> the Org mode. And very expensive effort as it is huge program:
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 415K Oct 19 10:20 org-agenda.el
>
> If I organize all my tasks centrally and only display them in Org
> files related to people, then making similar features like org-agenda
> becomes trivial.
>
> - Agenda for current week becomes trivial SQL query such as to select
>   those tasks by current week. Result becomes a list that may be used
>   either in Emacs completion or tabulated list mode or in Org or any
>   kind of modes.
>
> - To list entries with any kind of tags also become trivial, at least
>   for centralized database tasks that have been tagged.
>
> - searching for keywords is trivial single line SQL query.
>
> - multi-occur is not trivial, as that would involve searching in all
>   Org files. It asks for indexing Org files and going over them.
>
> - Finding any FLAGGED entries would become trivial
>
> It opens plethora of various means of reporting and accessing various
> action related notes or tasks.
>
> By general principle and due to nature of tasks that they do need
> attention, I think that all tasks should be centralized, any how, it
> does not matter how. From that principle I find it better that
> majority of tasks are handled in just few files and not many files as
> it becomes complex and users cannot any more remember which files.
>
> org-agenda and Org try to remember that for user, but there are many
> ways how Org files can be left without attention.
>
> If my staff member in other country uses Emacs such can access
> database and see assigned tasks. I can also export centralized tasks
> for the user and send such to user as Org file.
>
> If user updates tasks, as long as hyperlinks in the user's Org file
> are not disturbed, I can review the work of the user and just click on
> the hyperlink to update such task or mark them as DONE. Opinion of
> staff member on what is done and what is not done is not necessarily
> my opinion.
>
> Description of content body of the heading can be programmatically
> captured and entered into centralized database as a task.
>
> Then we comes to actual execution of tasks. How do we get reminded?
>
> Is the reminder only if I press {C-c a} for org-agenda? Do I need to
> do action to get reminded?
>
> I think computer shall be programmed to remind me on the start. Tasks
> that are in the database can be shown directly in Emacs, but SQL
> queries can be run and shown upon first log in into computer. Emails
> could be sent, SMS could be sent to remind me or other people assigned
> to the task. This brings attention and where people put attention that
> is becoming reality.
>
> Tasks could be shown by using timer in the mini buffer to remind user
> of what has to be done and what is next, what is today to be done.
>
> Keys can be assigned to TODAY, WEEK, MONTH, YEAR.
>
> Birthdays can be consolidated automatically, as if there is database
> of people, then their birtdays are automatic types of notes or tasks.
>
> People who travel often would like to see other people in the city. By
> changing one's location one could get list of known people and places
> in the city. If I am in Mombasa, Kenya I may forget that good
> restaurant as there are not many and visitor has to be brought in good
> one, not bad one (which there are many).
>
> With the introduction of emacs-libpq into GNU ELPA such features may
> become reality.
>
> emacs-libpq @ Github
> https://github.com/anse1/emacs-libpq
>
> Summary:
>
> - tasks are people related
>
> - plethora of Org files makes hard life to developers trying to satisfie 
> users' needs
>
> - tasks should be centralized and related to objects such as people, 
> organizations, subjects
>
> - Org files may be used as viewers for centralized task systems with
>   all the features left as they are as all properties and tags and
>   anything can be obtained from the database. Nothing changes.
>
> - upon saving Org file or upon click or invocation, the task in the
>   database can be updated if some description has been changed, but
>   updates can take place in the database directly.
>
> - tasks get liberated from any limits and formats, they can be just
>   hyperlinks or hyperdocuments to just anything.
>
> - integration and relation to many other objects becomes easier possible
>
> - searching, indexing, making plans, or creating new meta Org files on
>   the fly by using SQL queries becomes trivial. org-agenda of 450k can
>   become easily redundant
>   
> - once centralized, there must be reminding system that works within
>   or without Emacs, tasks are accessed by blazing speed, related
>   people's files are quickly located, various queries and ways of
>   reporting tasks in the list or meta Org file on the fly becomes
>   possible.
>
> I use "meta Org file" only to say that format is useful for displaying
> structured and relational information for the reason that it has
> hyperlinking support. As long as hyperlinks can be shown in any mode
> then reports could be displayed any how.