[Ml-yokadi] feature request

[Aurélien Gâteau]

Sébastien Renard wrote:
> For once you defend the magic point of view (arg order) and I would prefer 
> explicit (the -k switch).
> I have to think about it.

> We could do both (without switch arg order is used).

Propositions are different. If I understand correctly, your proposition
creates one group for every keyword. Given the following tasks:

prj1:
1 Do foo @people_alan @i18n
2 Do bar @people_bob @backport

prj2:
3 Do baz @people_bob @people_alan

Running "t_list -k prj%" would output this:

@backport
prj1: 2 Do bar @people_bob

@i18n
prj1: 1 Do foo @people_alan

@people_alan
prj1: 1 Do foo @i18n
prj2: 3 Do baz

@people_bob
prj1: 2 Do bar
prj2: 3 Do baz

That's quite a lot of duplicated task lines.
With my version, I would be able to run "t_list @people% prj%" and get:

@people_alan
prj1: 1 Do foo @i18n
prj2: 3 Do baz

@people_bob
prj1: 2 Do bar @backport
prj2: 3 Do baz

Which seems more interesting (less duplicated task lines). I could get
your output with "t_list @% prj%"

If you wanted to list everything you need to do with people, running
"t_list -k" would produce even more duplicates, while running "t_list
@people%" would give you only what you want.

>> Having the ability to specify a matching expression for keywords makes
>> it easier to do intelligent grouping if you organise your keywords in a
>> hierarchy. As I said before, you could group tasks by people with
>> "t_list @people%" for example. I think this would fit David use case
>> better.
> 
> We need that. Definitely. I will propose a patch for that in few days.

Great!

>>> - I can't display all tasks grouped by keyword without a -k switch.
>> You mean the equivalent of t_list with no parameters? Would this be
>> really useful? Once you have many tasks, listing them without a criteria
>>  is useless I think.
> 
> It's a matter of choice. Default to project or keyword grouping ? Default to 
> project is a sensible choice, but a switch to choose keyword grouping is not 
> so bad.

I don't understand the use-case, but you could get this with "t_list @%".

Aurélien