Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Apr 26, 2006, at 8:54, Christian Egli wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 18:19 +0200, Frank Ruell wrote:
>>> The only thing I've missed was an option for items, which are
>>> fontyfied
>>> and checkable via some shortcut, but never ever show up in ag
Hi,
It seems that different people use TODOs in different ways. For
example, I use TODOs at the very lowest possible level to indicate the
next action in a particular project. That said, I'd welcome some
hierarchical propagation of TODO, as it is with tags. One can imagine
using two kinds of to
On Apr 26, 2006, at 8:54, Christian Egli wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 18:19 +0200, Frank Ruell wrote:
The only thing I've missed was an option for items, which are
fontyfied
and checkable via some shortcut, but never ever show up in agenda (or
rather clutter up your agenda).
What would be a
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 18:19 +0200, Frank Ruell wrote:
> The only thing I've missed was an option for items, which are fontyfied
> and checkable via some shortcut, but never ever show up in agenda (or
> rather clutter up your agenda).
What would be a use case for that? I have been thinking I would
Hi,
I'm very impressed by org, it has lots of small intuitive features, i.e.
how you can increment/decrement dates via cursor keys. Danke je for this
nice org-anizer, Carsten!
The only thing I've missed was an option for items, which are fontyfied
and checkable via some shortcut, but never ever s
