alphapapa
Tag hierarchy support
Firstly, I would like to thank you for your great work with this package. I have been using it for a while now and I sincerely find the query syntax to be very intuitive.
Regarding the issue at hand, I have noticed that org-ql's tag search mechanism (particularly org-ql--tags-at) does not take hierarchies (i.e., tag groups) into considerations. I understand that tag hierarchies are not that common and their syntax may be unnecessarily complicated (e.g., regular expressions) but, nevertheless, I think they are a useful thing to have.
Hi,
Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad it's useful to you.
I thought I had an issue or note about tag groups somewhere, but apparently not. As you may have guessed, I don't use the feature myself, but I'd be glad to support it as long as it doesn't cause performance problems.
Thanks for the PR. I'll look at it.
Hi,
Is there any progress with checking and integrating this feature? It's been some time now and I've been using this so far without issues on my end.
Thanks.
Hi Panagiotis,
Thanks for reminding me, and apologies for the delay. I haven't had much time to work on my Emacs projects for a while, and when I have, I've been working on other projects of mine. I will plan to merge this for v0.7 of org-ql, and I'll try to review and test this and merge it to master soon, but it may be a bit longer. Please feel free to ping me again if necessary.
No problem. Thanks for taking the time to look at it in the first place and feel free to let me know if there is anything that I can do to help.
The master branch already has a number of new features that I'd like to release, so retargeting this for v0.8. Thanks for your patience.
Hi,
It would seem this issue and pull request have grown stale so, if you agree, I think it's better to close them. I also don't feel like this functionality is needed by anyone else and I can keep using my personal fork, so there's no real need for merging it upstream.
Regardless, thank you very much for keeping this feature in mind for so long.
Hi again,
Well, I'd prefer to keep it open and merge it someday. It provides missing functionality that's built-in to Org. Even if you're the only person who uses it now, it's still part of Org, so we should support it.
However, one additional complication is that the Org maintainers and I are considering trying to upstream org-ql into Org in the future, and that would require copyright assignment to the FSF for the code. Have you signed the FSF CA for Emacs/Org? If so, there's no obstacle here. If not, it's a simple process, as long as your circumstances allow it (employment, nationality, etc).
Thanks for following up.
Hi and sorry for the late reply.
Upstreaming org-ql is actually great news! It was about time, if you ask me, since packages like this and org-ml simplify the overall interaction and experience considerably.
If you feel keeping this MR around for later, then that also works for me.
Having said that, I'm not sure what is needed by me regarding the copyright assignment you mentioned. I don't believe I have any legal blockers but I'm not sure what it is required to do either. Is this necessary for contributing such a small feature to the codebase?
Panagiotis Vlantis @.***> writes:
Having said that, I'm not sure what is needed by me regarding the copyright assignment you mentioned. I don't believe I have any legal blockers but I'm not sure what it is required to do either. Is this necessary for contributing such a small feature to the codebase?
Any contribution to GNU projects that is larger than 15LOC of non-trivial code requires copyright assignment. You may refer to https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html#copyright for more details.
-- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/. Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode, or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92
@yantar92 thank you for replying so fast. I'll check it out and let you know when the ca is signed.
@yantar92 Would you agree if I added a note to the readme stating the general intention to upstream org-ql and mentioning the FSF CA requirement?
Adam Porter @.***> writes:
@yantar92 Would you agree if I added a note to the readme stating the general intention to upstream org-ql and mentioning the FSF CA requirement?
Feel free.
-- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/. Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode, or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92