[question] Why the design decision to spread concepts across files? about org-brain HOT 2 CLOSED

Hi! Have you watched my YouTube video on org-brain? If that is the case, many things has changed since then. It is now possible to have entries/concepts both as files and as headlines. I think that the use case you desire should be possible.

In your org-brain-directory you'd have a single file, let's call it index.org. Now you'll have an entry/concept called index, because the file itself is considered an entry. Now if you run org-brain-visualize on index, you can create top level headline entries (which will also become children of index, which perhaps is bad in your use case) by pressing h (creates a "local child", a headline under the current entry). If you're visualizing another entry, you can press c (for child) or p (for parent) or f (for friend) and type, for instance index::Quotes to create a new top level headline entry named Quotes in the index file. When visualizing Quotes, you could press h and type "To be or not to be?", and that would be added as a sub-heading (and child) to Quotes, or you could press c and type index::"To be or not to be?" if you wanted it as a top level entry in the file, but still as a child to Quotes.

The reason why you'd perhaps want several files would be to organize concepts "better". Another reason might be that entry names currently are shown as <file>::<headline>, which can lead to clashes if you have the same headline name in several places in a file, but at different levels.

Not sure if this makes things clearer? If there's something you need to make org-brain more usable for your workflow, please let me know.

from org-brain.

I'm marking this as closed, since it is possible to not spread concepts across files.

from org-brain.