Jens Schmidt <jschmidt4...@vodafonemail.de> writes:
> [ Readding tomás since this thread got more high-level again ... ]
>
> On 2025-04-20 13:27, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>
>> Looks reasonable.
>
> Thanks. More or less by chance I let Org's ERT tests run with
> `org-timestamp-formats' set to `("%Y-%m-%d" . "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M")'.
> ...
>
> But I wonder if your opinion w.r.t. my previous patch or omitting
> the "%a" from `org-timestamp-formats' in general changes by this
> new fact?
That's a consequence of many parts of Org mode not using the parser.
I consider the test failures you observe as a bug in the legacy Org
code. I also kind of expected such failures - there are inconsistencies
between the parser and older codebase with older code often making rigid
assumptions about syntax.
This is why I do not plan to make timestamp formats customizeable any
time soon. Not until we have more things in Org use parser.
Meanwhile, I do not oppose patches that fix the inconsistencies. But I
myself will better spend my time trying to solve the fundamental problem
of various parts of Org not using the parser.
--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode maintainer,
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>
