Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Subject: [PATCH] doc/org-manual.org: Clarify how timestamps are considered by > agenda Canceled. In favor of the other applied patch. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > >> I used C-c C-a to attach my patch to the message for you. I was looking >> for the reverse to pull your patch out. When I read the message, the >> patch was inlined, so I wasn't seeing any buttons(?) to pull it out with >> and the Mime

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: > I used C-c C-a to attach my patch to the message for you. I was looking > for the reverse to pull your patch out. When I read the message, the > patch was inlined, so I wasn't seeing any buttons(?) to pull it out with > and the Mime command didn't seem to do anything,

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > In message-mode: > > C-c C-a runs the command mml-attach-file (found in message-mode-map), > which is an autoloaded interactive native-compiled Lisp function in > ‘mml.el’. I used C-c C-a to attach my patch to the message for you. I was looking for the reverse to pull

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: >> See the attached final draft. > > What's the command to save the attachment? It doesn't look like a mime > attachment to me, In message-mode: C-c C-a runs the command mml-attach-file (found in message-mode-map), which is an autoloaded interactive native-compiled

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > >> Ihor Radchenko writes: >> >>> May you please re-create the patch for the current main? >> >> Ok. See below. > > Thanks! > See the attached final draft. What's the command to save the attachment? It doesn't look like a mime attachment to

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: > Ihor Radchenko writes: > >> May you please re-create the patch for the current main? > > Ok. See below. Thanks! See the attached final draft. I amended removals of cindex entries in the manual - redundancy will not hurt here (for better searchability). I also slightly

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > May you please re-create the patch for the current main? Ok. See below. Minor question -- I've used Ediff in the past, but I now see diff-mode in Emacs. I get the idea of it (I think I used an early version of it in the deep past), but wonder if I am seeing a bug in

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: >> What about: >> > ... > I agree with your change. I'm often minimalist in my changes (especially when > I'm trying not to rock the boat), but that's not always good. If that's > it, make the change in both files and we can call it a day. :-) May you please re-create

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > >> To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with a date >> -and/or a time. The specially formatted string carrying the date and >> +and/or a time purposes like when an event happens, a deadline for a >> +task, or tracking time

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: > To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with a date > -and/or a time. The specially formatted string carrying the date and > +and/or a time purposes like when an event happens, a deadline for a > +task, or tracking time spent on a task as described in

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: >> To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with a date >> -and/or a time. The specially formatted string carrying the date and >> +and/or a time for purposes like a timestamp on an event, a deadline >> +for a task, or clocking

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: > Ihor Radchenko writes: > >> Would you mind updating the patch? > > See below. Thanks! >> If you do not use magit, you can easily re-create patches for a given >> file from Emacs using >> M-x vc-diff M-x write-file /path/to/your.path > > I do use magit, but I'm not

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Would you mind updating the patch? See below. > If you do not use magit, you can easily re-create patches for a given > file from Emacs using > M-x vc-diff M-x write-file /path/to/your.path I do use magit, but I'm not good with it. In particular, I wanted to walk

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: >> I am mostly questioning "for purposes described in this chapter". >> All the TODO items can be labelled with multiple dates/times, not just in >> "this chapter". > > I see. I'm trying to say that the rest of this chapter describes how, > where and why you would use

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > -To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with a date -and/or a time. The specially formatted string carrying the date and -time information is called a /timestamp/ in Org mode. +To assist project planning,

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: >>> -To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with a date >>> -and/or a time. The specially formatted string carrying the date and >>> -time information is called a /timestamp/ in Org mode. >>> +To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: >>> Thank you. I haven't "patched" anything on Savannah and assumed I might >>> have to do the GNU copyright assignment. For this, I thought it would >>> be easy for you. >> >> Yes and no. One of the things you get to do when creating a proper patch >> is commit message

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > >> -To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with a date >> -and/or a time. The specially formatted string carrying the date and >> -time information is called a /timestamp/ in Org mode. >> +To assist project planning, TODO items

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > >> Thank you. I haven't "patched" anything on Savannah and assumed I might >> have to do the GNU copyright assignment. For this, I thought it would >> be easy for you. > > Yes and no. One of the things you get to do when creating a proper

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: > I've updated my patch file taking into account what you mentioned and > what I tested. Does this look all right? Thanks! See inline comments below. > -To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with a date > -and/or a time. The specially formatted string

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: >> Yes. Though it would be better to attach the diff with proper (.diff or >> .patch) extension. > > I hope you saw that I provided a "patch,txt" file in a following message > (forgot about the naming convention -- been a long time...) Inline and attachment are both

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > Maybe I'm not explicit enough. In section 8.1 of the Org 9.6 manual is a subsection "Time/Date Range" that *implies* times are supported in ranges by the use of words "time" and "timestamp" when, above, you're saying they

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > Maybe I'm not explicit enough. In section 8.1 of the Org 9.6 manual is a subsection "Time/Date Range" that *implies* times are supported in ranges by the use of words "time" and "timestamp" when, above, you're saying they

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: >>> Maybe I'm not explicit enough. In section 8.1 of the Org 9.6 manual is >>> a subsection "Time/Date Range" that *implies* times are supported in >>> ranges by the use of words "time" and "timestamp" when, above, you're >>> saying they are undefined (unsupported?) for

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > >>> "Timestamp" is the general term we use. We make it explicit in the >>> parent section that timestamps may or may not have time specification: >>> >>> A timestamp is a specification of a date (possibly with a time) in a >>> special

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > >>> "Timestamp" is the general term we use. We make it explicit in the >>> parent section that timestamps may or may not have time specification: >>> >>> A timestamp is a specification of a date (possibly with a time) in a >>> special

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: >> "Timestamp" is the general term we use. We make it explicit in the >> parent section that timestamps may or may not have time specification: >> >> A timestamp is a specification of a date (possibly with a time) in a >> special format, either =<2003-09-16 Tue>=

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > >>> AFAIK, closed date intervals with time are currently not supported by >>> org-agenda. You can instead use diary sexp timestamps, a bunch of active >>> timestamps in the body, or M-x org-clone-subtree-with-time-shift >> >> "a bunch of active

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: >> AFAIK, closed date intervals with time are currently not supported by >> org-agenda. You can instead use diary sexp timestamps, a bunch of active >> timestamps in the body, or M-x org-clone-subtree-with-time-shift > > "a bunch of active timestamps"?!? Ooh! I hadn't

Re: Is this proper time format?

Samuel Wales writes: > On 6/6/23, David Masterson wrote: >>Ooh! I hadn't gotten the impression >> that that was allowed from the "Dates and Times" section of the manual. > > thre exists org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry thanks -- I hadn't seen that before. -- David Masterson

Re: Is this proper time format?

On 6/6/23, David Masterson wrote: >Ooh! I hadn't gotten the impression > that that was allowed from the "Dates and Times" section of the manual. thre exists org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > >> Hmm. What about this: >> >> <2023-06-05 Mon>--<2023-06-08 Thu 10:30-12:15> >> >> Is there a recommended specification for my meeting? Or do I have to >> break it into multiple tasks (one for each day)? > > AFAIK, closed date

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: > Hmm. What about this: > > <2023-06-05 Mon>--<2023-06-08 Thu 10:30-12:15> > > Is there a recommended specification for my meeting? Or do I have to > break it into multiple tasks (one for each day)? AFAIK, closed date intervals with time are currently not

Re: Is this proper time format?

Ihor Radchenko writes: > David Masterson writes: > >> I have a meeting for this week from 10:30-12:15 M-Th. Can I represent >> that this way? >> >> <2023-06-05 Mon 10:30-12:15>--<2023-06-08 Thu 10:30-12:15> > > No. > >> Is this a valid date/time? > > It is valid in current parser

Re: Is this proper time format?

David Masterson writes: > I have a meeting for this week from 10:30-12:15 M-Th. Can I represent > that this way? > > <2023-06-05 Mon 10:30-12:15>--<2023-06-08 Thu 10:30-12:15> No. > Is this a valid date/time? It is valid in current parser implementation, but it is not what you

Is this proper time format?

I have a meeting for this week from 10:30-12:15 M-Th. Can I represent that this way? <2023-06-05 Mon 10:30-12:15>--<2023-06-08 Thu 10:30-12:15> Is this a valid date/time? -- David Masterson