Karl Voit devn...@karl-voit.at writes:
Hi!
Maybe there is a (to me at least hidden) feature behind the behavior
that org-time-stamp (C-c .) deletes any repeater information when
used to update a date stamp.
Or is this some kind of bug or at least unexpected behavior?
There was a report of
Karl Voit devn...@karl-voit.at wrote:
Maybe there is a (to me at least hidden) feature behind the behavior
that org-time-stamp (C-c .) deletes any repeater information when
used to update a date stamp.
AFAIK, org-time-stamp creates a brand-new time stamp: it does not update
an existing
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 18:01, Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com wrote:
Karl Voit devn...@karl-voit.at wrote:
Maybe there is a (to me at least hidden) feature behind the behavior
that org-time-stamp (C-c .) deletes any repeater information when
used to update a date stamp.
Same here with
Michael Brand michael.ch.br...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 18:01, Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com wrote:
Karl Voit devn...@karl-voit.at wrote:
Maybe there is a (to me at least hidden) feature behind the behavior
that org-time-stamp (C-c .) deletes any repeater information
