Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

[Bastien Guerry]

Hi Thomas and all,

please, let's take a deep breath and let me try to explain myself as
clearly as possible.  And remember english is not my first language,
so sometimes I may not express myself in the most adequate manner.

First, let me just restate this clearly: I am in favor of editing the
manual.org version instead of org.texi and I am in favor of doing it
as a 1-year experiment, to see how it goes, and I'm in favor of moving
forward as quickly as reasonable here.

But Org is not an island: Org is part of Emacs and Emacs documentation
is written in Texinfo.  This move is not a small one and I agree with
Glenn that it is worth discussing it to the Emacs mailing list before
we make the switch.  I assume the delay it may take.

"Discussing it" is not a hidden plan for not doing it :) It is just a
way of collecting thoughts from the Emacs community.

Also, please accept my apologies if I hurt your feelings when I said:

   "To speak the truth, I first thought migrating to org as the
   preferred format for editing the manual was just a bad idea."

"Bad" was too harsh and too simplistic.

What I thought was more this: editing manual.org instead of org.texi
can be very nice indeed, but it goes in the opposite direction of one
of the goals I've set for Org's code, which is to be directly edited
from within Emacs repo at some point, as Gnus does today.

If we make the switch -- and I want to make it! -- we won't be able
to merge Org's code into Emacs repo anytime soon.

So, to put things in perspective:

- You started the project in 2013:
  https://github.com/tsdye/orgmanual
  
- Someone resurrected it on the list in 2016:
  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/107141
  
- Nicolas made a giant leap forward and announced it was ready last
  December.

I never expressed myself negatively about this experiment because this
is how I saw it: a very nice experiment!  I was amazed at what you did
in 2013 the same way I'm amazed at what Nicolas did last year, because
this is truly a great achievement.

Maybe this is where some misunderstanding arose: to me, there was no
_project_ to migrate to manual.org -- it was an idea in the air after
you made your experiment and we now have the decision at hand because
the project is, well, DONE.

We could have done it another way: we could have discussed it as a
project, then anticipated that it will prevent Org's code to migrate
to Emacs repository, then discussed the pros and cons before investing
more time.

Anyway, here we are, I think it is safe to assume that editing an .org
version of the manual will help us write better documentation within a
year than to assume that Org's code will migrate into Emacs repository
within a year -- so let's celebrate the achievement by moving forward!

Let's just mention this on emacs-devel first.

And I hope my point of view is a bit more clear.

Thanks!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: [O] Adding an item to the agenda from the agenda view

[Eduardo Mercovich]

Dear all.

[...]
For TODO, org-agenda-capture (bound to "k" I believe?) already 
does what you think Shérab wanted, I would have thought? What is 
missing?


I understood it this way too. If you have a template defined for 
"event" it is "k e" and you're done...



--
eduardo mercovich

Donde se cruzan tus talentos 
con las necesidades del mundo, 
ahí está tu vocación. 
(Anónimo)

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

[Achim Gratz]

Nicolas Goaziou writes:
>> Testing the process of running "make pdf" while emacs will in charge
>> of producing a PDF file (.org => .texi => .pdf) will be interesting,
>> and potentially more error-prone than the current .texi=>.pdf process.
>
> I didn't invest time in the Makefile, so I don't know.

I've posted a working Makefile back when Thomas was working on the
manual and it is still working with minimal modifications.  If you
decide you want to have this (and exactly which way) I'm sure that can
be further refined in a matter of days (not weeks) to everyones
satisfaction if that should be necessary.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

SD adaptations for Waldorf Q V3.00R3 and Q+ V3.54R2:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada

Re: [O] org-protocol capture links with template specification

[Matthew Woodbury]

Nevermind, I think I've got it:

emacsclient -n "org-protocol:/capture?template=t*&*url=http%3a%2f%
> 2fduckduckgo%2ecom=DuckDuckGo"
>

I had a '?' rather than '&' after 'template=t'.

Matt

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Woodbury 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am running emacs-mac-app (v. 25.3.1) installed from Mac Ports, with
> org-mode version 9.1.6, on Mac OS 10.13.3.
>
> I have set up org-protocol.  If I open a terminal emulator window and
> enter this command
>
> emacsclient -n "org-protocol:/capture?url=http%3a%2f%2fduckduckgo%2ecom&
> title=DuckDuckGo"
>
> org-protocol works.  I can select the template I want, and an entry gets
> added to my .org file.
>
> However, if I add in a template specification
>
> emacsclient -n "org-protocol:/capture?template=t?url=http%3a%2f%
> 2fduckduckgo%2ecom=DuckDuckGo"
>
> I get this error:
>
> *ERROR*: No capture template referred to by "t?url" keys
>
> It seems the list isn't getting split at the '?' after 'template=t'.  I
> haven't been able to find anything on this and appear to be doing what
> org-protocol.el says I should.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

[Thomas S. Dye]

Nicolas Goaziou writes:


I don't have strong opinions on this issue.


I read it otherwise.


So do I.

Some history.  When I worked on this project several years ago, I 
concluded that Bastien was hostile to it, but there was nothing in 
his communication that was particularly negative.  When I 
suggested on the list recently that Bastien did not like the 
project, I was scolded a bit by others who found mildly supportive 
statements from him in the archives.  Yesterday, in Bastien's 
response to Glenn Morris, was the first time I read that he 
thought the project was a "bad idea".  I wish I'd known that at 
the time!


I'm fine with Bastien holding an opinion different from mine.  My 
point is that he did not speak his mind when I worked on the 
project, so it is valid today to disagree with his statement about 
the strength of his opinions.



Do you agree with the one I suggested?


I disagree. My motivation is not to attract more contributors. I 
don't
think this was Thomas and Jonathan's motivation when they 
started the

project either, but I may be wrong.


I can only speak for myself here.  At the time, I thought the Org 
manual was a stylistic mess and I thought I could use my 
experience as a writer and editor to improve the situation.  I had 
lots of experience writing in LaTeX, but found texinfo clunky and 
obtrusive.  When I discovered Jonathan's texinfo exporter and 
found that it worked nicely, I thought I had an opportunity to 
contribute two ways to Org: 1) I could create a document that 
would challenge the texinfo exporter and lead to its development 
and improvement, and 2) I could edit the manual using the same 
lightweight markup language that I was now using in my academic 
work, having switched from LaTeX to Org mode for its reproducible 
research capabilities.


Of course, I figured the Org mode developers who write the manual 
would also appreciate the switch, and was pleased that Carsten 
pitched in with the memorable comment about Org eating its own dog 
food.


Many thanks to Nicolas for his efforts on this project.

All the best,
Tom

--
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com

Re: [O] Paragraph consisting only of number and full stop disappears in export

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Eric Abrahamsen  writes:

> Hi,
>
> I just discovered that a paragraph disappeared from a subtree I was
> exporting, I guess because the paragraph consists of just a number
> followed by a full stop, and was interpreted as a list item. I'm
> translating subtitles, and the dialogue went:

Thanks for all the suggestions! I think I'll go with the zero-width
space before the full stop, that seems the least intrusive, and also the
least like to get "fixed" by other edits/cleanups I do.

Thanks again,
Eric

Re: [O] Paragraph consisting only of number and full stop disappears in export

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Samuel Wales  writes:

> i thought that was example that monospaced it.

Oops, you're right. But it still feels hacky.

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

[Phillip Lord]

Bastien  writes:

>> For the record, and as a first feedback, I totally disagree with the
>> FUD (".org flexibility will bring us new problems", seriously)
>> spread about the Org manual.
>
> Testing the .texi exporter (and maybe .html and .pdf) against this big
> file will be interesting.
>
> Testing the process of running "make pdf" while emacs will in charge
> of producing a PDF file (.org => .texi => .pdf) will be interesting,
> and potentially more error-prone than the current .texi=>.pdf process.
>
> But again, that's fine.

I think it will slow the build. Currently, the texi gets compiled in
parallel with the C, while having Emacs build it will shunt it till the
very end (after byte-compilation) where there is nothing to parallelize
(except for the tests).

Of course, if it's only org.org (or whatever) and everything else is
texi, then most of the manual would build earlier. If everything were
org, I think it would add about a minute to a 5 or 6 minute
build. Probably, by the time all of the manuals are in org-mode,
machines will be significantly faster, there will be emacs-free org mode
converter, or we will have hit the heat death of the universe. Perhaps
it's not a problem.

Phil

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

[Kaushal Modi]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:21 AM Nicolas Goaziou 
wrote:

>
> > Again, the question is: what problem are we trying to solve?
>
> Org boasts itself as a format to write, among other things,
> documentation. Do you think it is confidence-inspiring if we do not
> write our own documentation in our format? See also
> . This problem
> is now solved.
>
> Also, no matter how you look at it, doing any non-trivial edit in
> "org.texi" is painful. I want to ease that pain for current contributors
> (at least me), too.
>

+1 Editing Org is so much natural than .texi. And by this flow, we are not
obsoleting .texi, just having it generate automatically instead of
manually. It like writing a higher level language like C or Python instead
of tinkering in Assembly.


> Also, I'm not suggesting to get rid of "org.texi". I'm suggesting to
> generate it from "manual.org" and to avoid as much as possible editing
> it manually thereafter. In practice, this change is so small that I do
> not understand what all this fuss is about. This should be simple: move
> "manual.org" to doc/, overwrite "org.texi", and, when we feel confident
> enough, if it ever happens, remove "org.texi" altogether from the
> repository, generating it only before bundling a new Org release or
> merging it with Emacs.
>

Exactly. Emacs will anyways ship with org.texi. So moving the manual source
to Org in the Org repo shouldn't concern the Emacs repo.
-- 

Kaushal Modi

[O] org-protocol capture links with template specification

[Matthew Woodbury]

Hi,

I am running emacs-mac-app (v. 25.3.1) installed from Mac Ports, with
org-mode version 9.1.6, on Mac OS 10.13.3.

I have set up org-protocol.  If I open a terminal emulator window and enter
this command

emacsclient -n
"org-protocol:/capture?url=http%3a%2f%2fduckduckgo%2ecom=DuckDuckGo"

org-protocol works.  I can select the template I want, and an entry gets
added to my .org file.

However, if I add in a template specification

emacsclient -n
"org-protocol:/capture?template=t?url=http%3a%2f%2fduckduckgo%2ecom=DuckDuckGo"

I get this error:

*ERROR*: No capture template referred to by "t?url" keys

It seems the list isn't getting split at the '?' after 'template=t'.  I
haven't been able to find anything on this and appear to be doing what
org-protocol.el says I should.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Matt

Re: [O] Paragraph consisting only of number and full stop disappears in export

[Diego Zamboni]

Hi Eric,

I found out that adding any non-space character after the dot prevents org
from interpreting it as a list. In particular, adding a non-breaking-space
entity at the end of the line works, like this: "300.\nbsp"

Maybe other punctuations would also work and make sense in the context of
your document- see `org-entities-help` for the full list of available
entities.

--Diego


On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 11:07 PM, Eric Abrahamsen 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I just discovered that a paragraph disappeared from a subtree I was
> exporting, I guess because the paragraph consists of just a number
> followed by a full stop, and was interpreted as a list item. I'm
> translating subtitles, and the dialogue went:
>
> #+begin_src org
> There are no taxis, but I've got a car.
>
> How much to Dongying?
>
> 300.
>
> We can be there 10am tomorrow.
> #+end_src
>
> I'm not surprised that "300." got interpreted as a list item, but I
> wonder if there's a way to protect against it being removed altogether.
> I suppose it might be nice if a single list item with no content would
> be interpreted as a paragraph, but that probably opens the door to all
> kinds of weird edge cases. If there were just a way to escape it...
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [O] executing org-table TBLFM form changes (resets) language settings

[Rainer Stengele]

Am 31.01.2018 um 12:08 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:

Hello,

Rainer Stengele  writes:


I set the variables in my .emacs:

(defvar math-short-weekday-names '( "So" "Mo" "Di" "Mi" "Do" "Fr" "Sa" ))


Shouldn't it be (setq math-short-weekday-names '("So" ...))


Very strange, no clue why that happens.


No clue either. Calc is pretty foreign to me. You may want to ask Emacs
devel ML.

Regards,


Hi,

as nobody answered my calc question neither here nor in the emacs user group I 
am now using a work around.
I rearranged my timestamp table from

| IM Startzeit  | IM Endezeit   |  Stunden |  delta(x,16) | 
Anm. |
|---+---+--+--+--|
| [2018-01-22 Mo 19:30] | [2018-01-23 Di 14:30] |19.00 | 3.00 | 
 |
#+TBLFM: $3=24*(date(<$2>)-date(<$1>)); %.2f::$4=$3-16.0; %.2f

to

| IM Startzeit -- IM Endezeit  | Stunden - Min String |  Delta 
| Anm. |
|--+--++--|
| [2018-01-22 Mo 19:30]--[2018-01-23 Di 14:30] |19.00 |   3.00 
|  |
#+TBLFM: $2='(rst/org-evaluate-time-range)::$3=$2-16.0; %.2f

I copied org-evaluate-time-range to rst/org-evaluate-time-range and modified the output slightly to give me a %2.2f hours based time range 
delta. Brutal, but works.


Thank you.
Regards, Rainer


(defun rst/org-evaluate-time-range ( to-buffer)
  "Evaluate a time range by computing the difference between start and end.
Normally the result is just printed in the echo area, but with prefix arg
TO-BUFFER, the result is inserted just after the date stamp into the buffer.
If the time range is actually in a table, the result is inserted into the
next column.
For time difference computation, a year is assumed to be exactly 365
days in order to avoid rounding problems."
  (interactive "P")
  (or
   (org-clock-update-time-maybe)
   (save-excursion
 (unless (org-at-date-range-p t)
   (goto-char (point-at-bol))
   (re-search-forward org-tr-regexp-both (point-at-eol) t))
 (unless (org-at-date-range-p t)
   (user-error "Not at a time-stamp range, and none found in current 
line")))
   (let* ((ts1 (match-string 1))
  (ts2 (match-string 2))
  (havetime (or (> (length ts1) 15) (> (length ts2) 15)))
  (match-end (match-end 0))
  (time1 (org-time-string-to-time ts1))
  (time2 (org-time-string-to-time ts2))
  (t1 (float-time time1))
  (t2 (float-time time2))
  (diff (abs (- t2 t1)))
  (negative (< (- t2 t1) 0))
  ;; (ys (floor (* 365 24 60 60)))
  (ds (* 24 60 60))
  (hs (* 60 60))
  (fy "%dy %dd %02d:%02d")
  (fy1 "%dy %dd")
  (fd "%dd %02d:%02d")
  (fd1 "%dd")
  (fh "%02d:%02d")
  y d h m align)
 (if havetime
 (setq ; y (floor (/ diff ys))  diff (mod diff ys)
  y 0
  d (floor (/ diff ds))  diff (mod diff ds)
  h (floor (/ diff hs))  diff (mod diff hs)
  m (floor (/ diff 60)))
   (setq ; y (floor (/ diff ys))  diff (mod diff ys)
y 0
d (floor (+ (/ diff ds) 0.5))
h 0 m 0))
 (if (not to-buffer)
 ;; RST changes here:
 ;; (message "%s" (org-make-tdiff-string y d h m))
 (message "%2.2f" (+ (* 24 d) h (/ m 60.0)))
   (if (org-at-table-p)
   (progn
 (goto-char match-end)
 (setq align t)
 (and (looking-at " *|") (goto-char (match-end 0
 (goto-char match-end))
   (when (looking-at
  "\\( *-? *[0-9]+y\\)?\\( *[0-9]+d\\)? *[0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]")
 (replace-match ""))
   (when negative (insert " -"))
   (if (> y 0) (insert " " (format (if havetime fy fy1) y d h m))
 (if (> d 0) (insert " " (format (if havetime fd fd1) d h m))
   (insert " " (format fh h m
   (when align (org-table-align))
   (message "Time difference inserted")

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Bastien Guerry  writes:

> So when we make the move, we publish 9.2 by merging master in maint
> and edit orgmanual.org from both maint and master.  Correct?

Correct, but I don't know what "orgmanual.org" you are talking about.
You recently re-introduced a file named "orgmanual.org" in contrib/
alongside "manual.org". The former is apparently outdated.

> It is not about setting a time window: we just need to be careful with
> this move and discuss it.  One week seems fine.

As pointed out in another message, I do not understand what carefulness
is needed. I suggest to replace "org.texi" with ... "org.texi". The only
difference lies in how we edit it, which concerns a handful of persons
in the world.

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Bastien  writes:

> But I'm sure there will be some.

True, as I'm sure there are some "challenges" with the current Texinfo
manual. Therefore, I do not see the point of insisting on the fact that
a new paradigm brings new problems.

> I don't have strong opinions on this issue.

I read it otherwise.

> When I said "Let's test org capabilities against a giant .org file."
> I was not just thinking about editing it, but also e.g. exporting.

Spending time on the Org version of the manual included exporting it on
a regular basis.

> Testing the .texi exporter (and maybe .html and .pdf) against this big
> file will be interesting.

This is what I am asking for since I announced the Org manual was ready.
Have you tried to export it? Have you looked at the generated Info
manual? Does it look so unsatisfying to you?

> Testing the process of running "make pdf" while emacs will in charge
> of producing a PDF file (.org => .texi => .pdf) will be interesting,
> and potentially more error-prone than the current .texi=>.pdf process.

I didn't invest time in the Makefile, so I don't know.

> I have not read the conventions yet, and other contributors may not
> have read them, so this those conventions are just a proposal for now.
> Core contributors need to formally discuss them and explicitely agree.

If you want to actually do something, you need to make choices. I made
them. Some are arbitrary, other are a result of trial and error, some
are even the result of a thinking process.

You can of course spend energy and time to discuss every single
convention I used, although I suggest to spend them elsewhere. Moreover,
if you have better conventions, feel free to apply them thoroughly and
document them. Let's just move forward, really.

> Again, the question is: what problem are we trying to solve?

Org boasts itself as a format to write, among other things,
documentation. Do you think it is confidence-inspiring if we do not
write our own documentation in our format? See also
. This problem
is now solved.

Also, no matter how you look at it, doing any non-trivial edit in
"org.texi" is painful. I want to ease that pain for current contributors
(at least me), too.

> Do you agree with the one I suggested?

I disagree. My motivation is not to attract more contributors. I don't
think this was Thomas and Jonathan's motivation when they started the
project either, but I may be wrong. 

Having more manual contributors would be a nice side-effect. However,
I'm opposed to consider it as a good measurement for the switch.

Also, I'm not suggesting to get rid of "org.texi". I'm suggesting to
generate it from "manual.org" and to avoid as much as possible editing
it manually thereafter. In practice, this change is so small that I do
not understand what all this fuss is about. This should be simple: move
"manual.org" to doc/, overwrite "org.texi", and, when we feel confident
enough, if it ever happens, remove "org.texi" altogether from the
repository, generating it only before bundling a new Org release or
merging it with Emacs.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou0x80A93738

Re: [O] org-babel-execute-src-block does not insert inline image with `master` branch source code Org

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

"numbch...@gmail.com"  writes:

> After `git bisect`, found that commit 122bf2997 caused this problem.
> @Nicolas, can you fix this commit?

Fixed. Thank you for the heads-up.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: [O] Paragraph consisting only of number and full stop disappears in export

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Eric Abrahamsen  writes:

> I just discovered that a paragraph disappeared from a subtree I was
> exporting, I guess because the paragraph consists of just a number
> followed by a full stop, and was interpreted as a list item. I'm
> translating subtitles, and the dialogue went:
>
> #+begin_src org
> There are no taxis, but I've got a car.
>
> How much to Dongying?
>
> 300.
>
> We can be there 10am tomorrow.
> #+end_src
>
> I'm not surprised that "300." got interpreted as a list item, but I
> wonder if there's a way to protect against it being removed altogether.
> I suppose it might be nice if a single list item with no content would
> be interpreted as a paragraph, but that probably opens the door to all
> kinds of weird edge cases. If there were just a way to escape it...

You could insert a zero width space between the number and the dot.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: [O] Adding an item to the agenda from the agenda view

[Eric S Fraga]

On Monday,  5 Mar 2018 at 09:05, Neil Jerram wrote:
> Eric,
>
> IIUC, that would add an entry to the 'diary' file.

Hi Neil,

You are correct.  However, if you have defined org-agenda-diary-file, an
org entry is added via org-agenda-diary-entry-in-org-file.

> I thought perhaps that Shérab meant something different, namely to
> capture a new TODO item that was scheduled for that date.

Maybe.  The post was vague.  I read it the other way.  Shérab?

For TODO, org-agenda-capture (bound to "k" I believe?) already does what
you think Shérab wanted, I would have thought?  What is missing?

For me, looking at dates in the agenda is about checking availability
and this usually means I am looking at creating a new appointment.  "i
d" is perfect for this.


-- 
Eric S Fraga via Emacs 27.0.50, Org release_9.1.6-191-g90607d


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [O] Patch for documentation standards

[Bastien Guerry]

"Thomas S. Dye"  writes:

> I hope you find it useful.

I definitely do, thanks again!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: [O] Adding an item to the agenda from the agenda view

[Neil Jerram]

Eric,

IIUC, that would add an entry to the 'diary' file.  I thought perhaps that 
Shérab meant something different, namely to capture a new TODO item that was 
scheduled for that date.

In any case, I think that latter thing is also an interesting thing to do. Is 
there an easy way to do that?

Best wishes - Neil


On 5 March 2018 06:52:40 GMT+00:00, Eric S Fraga  wrote:
>On Sunday,  4 Mar 2018 at 23:22, Shérab wrote:
>> I would like to add an item with the
>> corresponding date to my agenda file. What would be the most direct /
>> straightforward / idiomatic way to achieve this, please?
>
>try "i d".  "i" should be bound to org-agenda-diary-entry.  This is the
>route I use for adding entries to my agenda all the time.
>
>-- 
>Eric S Fraga via Emacs 27.0.50, Org release_9.1.6-191-g90607d

Re: [O] org-babel-execute-src-block does not insert inline image with `master` branch source code Org

[numbch...@gmail.com]

After `git bisect`, found that commit 122bf2997 caused this problem.
@Nicolas, can you fix this commit?


[stardiviner] GPG key ID: 47C32433
IRC(freeenode): stardiviner Twitter:  @numbchild
Key fingerprint = 9BAA 92BC CDDD B9EF 3B36  CB99 B8C4 B8E5 47C3 2433
Blog: http://stardiviner.github.io/

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 9:54 PM, numbch...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> With following example:
> ```
> #+begin_src gnuplot :session :results graphics :file "data/images/sin.png"
> :cache no
> set term png
> set grid
> plot sin(x), cos(x)
> #+end_src
> ```
> If I use Org-mode ELPA version. then it works fine.
> But when I use `master` branch version, then it does not have any result.
> Tried to check out git log of recently commits, and `ob-core.el` file
> recent git log commits, and `ob-gnuplot.el`'s. But does not found any
> suspicious commits yet.
>
> Environment info:
> - Arch Linux
> - Emacs version: GNU Emacs 27.0.50 (build 1, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+
> Version 3.22.26) of 2018-02-10
> - Org-mode version: Org mode version 9.1.7 (9.1.7-elpaplus @ mixed
> installation! /home/stardiviner/.emacs.d/elpa/org-plus-contrib-20180226/
> and /home/stardiviner/Code/Emacs/org-mode/lisp/)
>
> [stardiviner] GPG key ID: 47C32433
> IRC(freeenode): stardiviner Twitter:  @numbchild
> Key fingerprint = 9BAA 92BC CDDD B9EF 3B36  CB99 B8C4 B8E5 47C3 2433
> Blog: http://stardiviner.github.io/
>