Re: Culling org files

[Samuel Wales]

trs> [smaller files] My agenda is not cluttered.

it is not clear to me why more smaller files and shallower trees in
the outline would improve the agenda.  sounds good though.

tim> naming convention ... to determine what is included

this is also what i do.  org-agenda-files is just set at startup
according to basename pattern.

On 3/4/21, Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> TRS-80 <lists.trs-80@isnotmyreal.name> writes:
>
>> On 2021-03-03 16:59, Samuel Wales wrote:
>> I have come to similar conclusion about "don't let org files get too
>> big."  Besides agenda speed, I think it is just easier to
>> conceptualize things when each file covers only a limited scope, trees
>> are more shallow, etc.
>>
>> So, lately (last year or more), I have been trying a "many small (up
>> to perhaps medium)" instead of "few big" files approach (along with
>> some custom tooling) and it has been working /a lot/ better for me.  I
>> really feel on top of things for the first time in a long time.  My
>> agenda is not cluttered.  I can focus on important things, while not
>> losing track of the rest, etc.
>>
>
> I agree with this. I have a similar approach. I consider the file system
> and org files to be the initial 'structure' and have many smaller files
> rather than a couple of very large ones. Only a subset of files play a
> role in the agenda (I'm still experimenting with two different
> approaches for this - one uses a couple of functions which can
> dynamically change the agenda list and the other uses a naming
> convention which is used as the basis of a search to determine what is
> included in the agenda. Final rsult will likely be a combination).
>
> My use pattern also constantly evolves as my requirements and priorities
> change. It is and probably always will be, a work in progress!
>
> --
> Tim Cross
>
>


-- 
The Kafka Pandemic

Please learn what misopathy is.
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html