Re: Humane Tasking Initiative / FlowgencyTM

[pbeckingham]

Taskwarrior dev here.

When we receive feature requests, it's more likely that the response is "please tell us more", than "uh, tl;dr, could you make a pull request, thx". Particularly as we don't work from pull requests. In fact, I feel like we spend all our time asking for more details from both feature requests and bug reports.

But I like your idea, and I wish you had made that feature request. This seems like an interesting improvement to urgency, and anything that truly improves the handling of lists is fair game.

I like the non-linear ramp up as the due date approaches. Do you cap the number? Otherwise it seems that other urgency factors will be drowned out.

I agree about the "Estimate progress", which is only prone to manipulation as you said, but also omission. Any data that is collected, and simply shown back to the user isn't really pulling it's own weight.

[flowdy]

Cool, nice to meet you here!

Do you cap the number?

Sorry, what do you mean? The number of urgency criteria is five by now, and except priority all are time-dynamic i.e. influenced by progress of the defined "net working times" vs. still times.

I invite you to take the code relating to the time model as the feature request. Given your perlmonk rank, I suppose your practical knowledge of Perl is better than mine of C++. You may ignore the rest, taskwarrior is appreciated as it is. My time model implementation is not yet perfect, for sure, but it is pretty complete.