task new: einen zweiten Schreibweg in den Tracker (ein Posten, keine Seite, #132)
Files changed: - CHANGES.md - VERSION - docs/knowledge-and-commitment.md - instructions/wiki-ingest/SKILL.md - tools/CONTRACT.md - tools/chemenu/cli.py - tools/chemenu/commands/task_cmd.py - tools/chemenu/tasks/protocol.py - tools/chemenu/tasks/superproductivity.py - tools/chemenu/tests/test_instructions_cmd.py - tools/chemenu/tests/test_superproductivity.py - tools/chemenu/tests/test_task_cmd.py
This commit is contained in:
1 parent
e07d1ca42a
commit
cfbe3ea83e
12 files changed
+845
-45
No files matched your search
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Those look like one subject - both are "things about my projects" - and the stac
|
||||
keeps them apart: `kb/gtd/` holds one page per initiative, an external task tracker holds the
|
||||
open items, and the only thing that crosses between them is a name. This page is about why that
|
||||
line was drawn there. The rules that follow from it live in [kb/CONTRACT.md](../kb/CONTRACT.md)
|
||||
and the `review` and `new project` rows of [tools/CONTRACT.md](../tools/CONTRACT.md).
|
||||
and the `review`, `new project` and `task new` rows of [tools/CONTRACT.md](../tools/CONTRACT.md).
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- wikitool:toc -->
|
||||
## Contents
|
||||
@@ -93,8 +93,18 @@ open right now. Anyone wanting the second reads the tracker, or runs the review.
|
||||
|
||||
This pays for itself somewhere unexpected: with the page carrying no task state, an agent has no
|
||||
reason to read the task list at all outside the weekly review. That is what keeps the command
|
||||
surface as small as it is - one read command and one creation command - rather than growing a
|
||||
full CRUD tree over somebody's todo list.
|
||||
surface as small as it is - one read command and two creation commands - rather than growing a
|
||||
full CRUD tree over somebody's todo list. The second creation command exists because a single
|
||||
name is not always the whole story: a source can carry a piece of durable knowledge and a
|
||||
commitment to follow up on it at the same time - a complaint arriving by email is both something
|
||||
to file and something to chase - and the tracker-side half of that needs its own write path
|
||||
alongside `new project`'s pairing of a page with a tracker project. `task new` creates only the
|
||||
tracker item, never a page; a source that also carries knowledge gets that knowledge filed
|
||||
through the ordinary page-creation commands, as a separate step. The two are never one
|
||||
transaction the way `new project`'s tracker-then-page order is within a single command - they are
|
||||
two independent writes a skill sequences, tracker first, so a failure creating the item leaves no
|
||||
page and no promoted source material behind it, and a failure on the knowledge side afterwards is
|
||||
exactly the ordinary "a source without a page" state `lint` already reports.
|
||||
|
||||
## A finished initiative is a state, not a location
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user