Re: Still Wishing for Snooze

[Michael Brand <michael.ch.brand@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Michael Brand
<michael.ch.brand@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me only suggest an idea to deal with this, item-based: When the
> DEADLINE “warning period” would be generalized to allow positive
> numbers then it would extend to a “warning and delay period”. Starting
> with:
>
> * TODO [#B] Verify login to the virtual machines
>   DEADLINE: <2013-01-22 Tue +1w -0d>
>
> It could be delayed to <2013-01-24 Thu> which means two days later by
> changing the “warning and delay period” to 2d:
>
> * TODO [#B] Verify login to the virtual machines
>   DEADLINE: <2013-01-22 Tue +1w 2d>
>
> This would not show up in the agenda until <2013-01-24 Thu>. At that
> date it would be shown with the desirable “In -2 d.:” for overdue to
> get the higher priority. When set to done it would become:
>
> * TODO [#B] Verify login to the virtual machines
>   DEADLINE: <2013-01-29 Tue +1w -0d>
>
> Note the change from 2d to -0d: It is important that when the date
> repeats and has a positive warning period aka delay period then it
> must be reset to -0d. Otherwise undesirable surprises are guaranteed.

Resetting to just -0d would only be enough for this example, not for
the common case where we don’t know which DEADLINE warning period was
in use before the DEADLINE has been delayed. Thus it looks like a
DEADLINE delay would have to be _additional_ to the DEADLINE warning
period.

Some applications would require that the DEADLINE delay would affect
only the warning date but not the due date of the DEADLINE. Other
applications would require both to be delayed. Maybe even others only
the due date.

It simply means that this suggestion is still incomplete. I don’t
expect it to be refined.

Michael