Discuss all things Remember The Milk.


Repeating of tasks with start date only

sowens says:
When I complete a repeating (repeat after) that only has a start date, the repeated task keeps the same start date and adds a due date. The behavior I would expect is for the repeated task to have a start date incremented from today's date by the number of days in the repeat.
Posted at 10:39pm on July 7, 2016
joshua.c.bartholomew says:
I'd add to this that there should be two different repeat parameters--a start date repeat and a due date repeat. For example, I have to renew my vehicle registration by the end of the month in which it expires every year. But, I can't start the renewal process until the beginning of the month. So, I'd like to have the ability to repeat the start date for the first day of that month yearly and repeat the due date for the last day of that month yearly.
Posted 6 years ago
(closed account) says:
Really hoping this gets properly implemented - I find that a significant proportion of my task list is typically composed of this type of task (the vast majority of all 'maintenance' type activities and other routines fit this pattern), and without this natural treatment of start dates the list quickly becomes unworkable.
Posted 6 years ago
yviwinter says:
Would love that feature and like Joshua mentions I think there should be two repeat options
Posted 5 years ago
jondcoleman says:
I'd really love this.
Posted 5 years ago
jondcoleman says:
I'm disappointed this hasn't been implemented yet. It's the one feature that makes me regularly re-evaluate continuing with RTM.
Posted 4 years ago
jogo1 says:
I'm surprised there aren't more people asking for this. But I'm also surprised how many task managing apps don't do it as sowens expects above, so maybe my use of start date without due date is not very commmon. I was looking to switch from a competitor, but I think this is a deal breaker for me.
Posted 4 years ago
jackatrtm says:
I agree totally. The vast majority of my tasks fall into the category of repetitive (after) but do not require a due date. The current implementation requires me to eliminate the due dates for each of the repeated tasks.
Posted 4 years ago
jogo1 says:
I really wish RTM would increment start dates on repeating tasks. Just apply the same logic for the start date as is used for the for the due date. And if the original task has only a start date, then the repeated task should be the same.

It seems like this should be an easy update, but would it mess anybody up?

For sure this would greatly help those of us who use start dates to indicate when we want tasks to appear on our radar, and only use due dates when there's a true deadline.
Posted 3 years ago
aaron.boydston says:
Yeah, a big reason I use RTM is because I use due dates strictly as real due dates. Therefore, I use starts dates a lot for my workflow.

Most of my repeating tasks do not have a hard due date so I need to repeat off of a start date. The due dates required for repeating tasks detracts from those tasks that have a hard due date and must get done that day.
Posted 3 years ago
eoe says:
Totally agree with this. There's a moderately annoying work-around, but I'd love if I could just mark a task as complete and have the start date push forward whatever days I set.

My workaround is just to put in the notes how often I want it to "start repeat", and when I'm done rather than mark it as complete, I just change the start date manually using the notes as reference.
Posted 3 years ago
jvselinger says:
This feature would be very helpful for me!
Posted 2 years ago
geojono says:
I agree. This would be useful. Like jogo1 said: "if the original task has only a start date, then the repeated task should be the same."

If there's only a due date, the repeat should adjust that due date without adding a start date (like now).
If there's a start date and a due date, the repeat should adjust both dates by the same interval (like now).
If there's only a start date, the repeat should adjust that start date without adding a due date.
Posted 1 year ago
mitchh says:
I'd use this too, and it doesn't seem like it would break anything.
Posted 8 months ago
vilfredo says:
I agree with this idea!
Posted 8 months ago
Log in to post a reply.