>>> pin...@iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard) writes:
todo-dependencies should likely never be enforced for repeated
entries
>> Bernt Hansen writes:
>>> You can set a NOBLOCKING property to t to skip the dependency check
>>> for repeated tasks.
Bernt Hansen writes:
> It would be nice
pin...@iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard) writes:
> Bernt Hansen writes:
>
>> pin...@iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard) writes:
>
>>> todo-dependencies should likely never be enforced for repeated
>>> entries, even if enforced otherwise, as enforcing for repetitions
>>> with the current Org mecha
Bernt Hansen writes:
> pin...@iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard) writes:
>> todo-dependencies should likely never be enforced for repeated
>> entries, even if enforced otherwise, as enforcing for repetitions
>> with the current Org mechanics has no meaning, at least as I
>> undestand Org so far.
pin...@iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard) writes:
>
> Whenever a TODO is scheduled with a recurrence (with .+ or ++), forcing
> the state to DONE is a mere way to trigger Org into setting the state to
> TODO again, yet with the scheduled date updated for the next repetition.
> Setting to DONE merel
Hi, people.
Whenever a TODO is scheduled with a recurrence (with .+ or ++), forcing
the state to DONE is a mere way to trigger Org into setting the state to
TODO again, yet with the scheduled date updated for the next repetition.
Setting to DONE merely means that this repetition is done, which is
