I’m going to start off this time with a complaint against taskwarrior, even though I know that’s in poor form.
Here it is: The application is called “taskwarrior.” The home page is labeled “Taskwarrior.” The documentation refers to “taskwarrior.” The executable is called …
Maybe that’s not an issue for you, and if you’re a fan of taskwarrior it’s probably not. But for people like me carrying around a tinge of OCPD, it’s something that needs to be brought into line, for the sake of uniformity. 👿
It probably nags at package managers too; I see that both Arch and Debian call their versions “task,” and only use “taskwarrior” in the descriptions. 🙄
That small irritation aside, I can tell you that taskwarrior is probably what stands as a role model for many of the task organizers available to the console. You can see bits of this in taskcmd, sh-todo and even devtodo, just to mention a few.
And taskwarrior has been around for a while, so it has adopted a lot of features that its imitators don’t have quite yet — or probably don’t plan on adding, like syncing between devices.
This isn’t the first time I’ve tinkered with taskwarrior though, and I must admit that my overall impression hasn’t changed much. taskwarrior reaches a level of detail that I never need, and in that sense I fear it may have obscured itself. At least to me.
Of course, that feeling might be compounded by the whole taskwarrior-task thing. I’m like that sometimes. 🙄
P.S.: We’ll revisit taskwarrior in the months ahead, when we look at its new fullscreen console interface! Oooh! 😀