Re: [O] Maintainer change on May 1st

hi guys, are we going to get the just when i thought i was out they pull me back in video? :) -cesar On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.comwrote: Hi everyone, per May 1st, I would like to swing the official maintainership back to Bastien, who has

Re: [O] org-agenda-scheduled-leaders and repeating tasks

8-24 Mon ++1w> and in the agenda it shows up as: Scheduled: TODO some task best, -cm On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:13 AM, cesar mena <cm...@pobox.com> wrote: > hello guys, > > so far so good for me. > > thanks nicolas and matt. > > -cm > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at

Re: [O] org-agenda-scheduled-leaders and repeating tasks

on, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > cesar mena <cm...@pobox.com> writes: > >> sorry. i made a mistake updating my tree. >> >> i'm quite certain i'm on master now "org-version: 8.3.2 >> (release_8.3.2-219-g770671)&qu

Re: [O] org-agenda-scheduled-leaders and repeating tasks

hi samuel, yes i suspect this is why it hasn't been reported in years. what say you nicolas? -cm On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Samuel Wales wrote: > fwiw, i am one who is so [disorganized?] that the old behavior is > preferred. if something is a 6m repeater, and i

Re: [O] org-agenda-scheduled-leaders and repeating tasks

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > cesar mena <cm...@pobox.com> writes: > >> however the face is now `org-scheduled-today, as opposed to >> `org-scheduled-previously, and the agenda sorting is wrong. instead of >>

Re: [O] org-agenda-scheduled-leaders and repeating tasks

hello guys, so far so good for me. thanks nicolas and matt. -cm On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Nicolas Goaziou writes: > >> Matt Lundin writes: >> >>> In short, org-habit seems to want a + notation

Re: [O] org-agenda-scheduled-leaders and repeating tasks

Hi Nicolas, Thanks! Your approach works for me, buy won't it trip up someone who is used to the current behaviour? Cheers -cm Hello, cesar mena <cm...@pobox.com> writes: > i think what i am trying to say is best shown with an example. > > so let's say that today is oct 13t

[O] org-agenda-scheduled-leaders and repeating tasks

hello everyone, i think what i am trying to say is best shown with an example. so let's say that today is oct 13th. the task ** TODO check smoke alarm SCHEDULED: <2015-10-04 Sun .+10d> shows up in the agenda as: Sched.10x: TODO check smoke alarm however, had the task been scheduled a

Re: [O] Do you like to have your TODOs at the same headline level?

i do the same; 4 char states - with box around them (setq org-todo-keyword-faces '(("TODO" . (:foreground "pink" :box (:line-width 1 :style none))) ("NEXT" . (:foreground "green" :box (:line-width 1 :style none)))

Re: [O] how do you select tasks for clocking in?

Alan Schmitt writes: > [ Unknown signature status ] > Hello, > > I'm trying to consistently use org-clock, but I'm encountering a big > obstacle: task selection. I very often do not start working on a task as > I'm in my main org file, so to clock it in I would

Re: [O] helm-org-clock for using helm rather than orgmode select menu

"Tory S. Anderson" writes: > I've made the following adjustment to org-clock-select-task that > allows you to (optionally) use helm to select, rather than > orgmode's built in screens. Eventually I'd like to see all orgmode > commands have the option of using helm

Re: [O] helm-org-clock for using helm rather than orgmode select menu

"Tory S. Anderson" writes: > Are you sure? In my org 9.0 box, I still see a non-helm > "org-agenda" menu (one of the things I haven't gotten around to > helm-ifying yet). sorry, i mis-understood. this is only for things that use the completion-read interface.

Re: [O] [bug] timed repeater shows up in wrong place

Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> writes: > On 11/10/16, cesar mena <cm...@pobox.com> wrote: >> so the only thing i noticed is that your test case did not set >> org-agenda-files for me. specifically your regexp did not pick up the >> file (filename is

Re: [O] [bug] timed repeater shows up in wrong place

hello list, nicolas, samuel, On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Hello, > > Samuel Wales writes: > >> On 11/27/16, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >>> I pushed a few more fixed in plain time-stamps and

Re: [O] [bug] timed repeater shows up in wrong place

Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > Hello, > > cesar mena <cm...@pobox.com> writes: > >> hello guys, >> >> Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> by the way there is a bug in org 9 where org-scheduled f

Re: [O] [bug] timed repeater shows up in wrong place

hello, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Samuel Wales writes: > >> thanks for the explanation. the idea is that org 9 is using the >> previously scheduled section as a complete list and that it did not >> trigger on the first day and did on the

Re: [O] [bug] timed repeater shows up in wrong place

Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > Hello, > > cesar mena <cm...@pobox.com> writes: > >> just making sure i'm getting this. >> >> in maint, if org-agenda-repeating-timestamp-show-all is nil we get >> 72x. if it is non nil we get 2

Re: [O] [bug] timed repeater shows up in wrong place

hello guys, Samuel Wales writes: > by the way there is a bug in org 9 where org-scheduled face is > erroneously used instead of org-scheduled-previously. as pointed out by samuel, commit 69ec6258b65a5d317f0dcb275ec2d5a90f72f191 introduced a bug where a previously

[O] please read: bug when marking tasks done

hello everyone, in the maint branch, marking a repeatable task as DONE causes the "Rescheduled from" dates to be lost in the :LOGBOOK:. in the below diff all of the from dates are rewritten with the new scheduled date: - SCHEDULED: <2018-12-04 Tue .+1m> + SCHEDULED: <2019-02-05

Re: [O] please read: bug when marking tasks done

hello, On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 3:16 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Hello, > > cesar mena writes: > > > i'm ok going with the verbatim syntax - rescheduled lines will now look > > like (w/o the double quotes?): > > > > - Rescheduled from =[2019-02-0

Re: [O] please read: bug when marking tasks done

hello nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > cesar mena writes: > >> as per the documentation for "org-auto-repeat-maybe" only the base date >> of repeating deadline/scheduled time stamps should change. AFAICT the >> patch changes every occur

Re: [O] please read: bug when marking tasks done

hi nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > cesar mena writes: > >> from the docstring: >> >> |--- org-auto-repeat-maybe >> | Check if the *current headline* contains a repeated time-stamp. >> | &

Re: [O] please read: bug when marking tasks done

hi nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > cesar mena writes: > >> hello everyone, >> >> in the maint branch, marking a repeatable task as DONE causes the >> "Rescheduled from" dates to be lost in the :LOGBOOK:. >> >> in the b

Re: [O] recent org-mode changes: completion of repeated tasks cause rewriting of LOGBOOK 'Rescheduled from' entries

sorry. forgot to do a wide reply. fwd'ing the list. -cm --- Begin Message --- hello daniel, Daniel Ortmann writes: > I have a daily scheduled task with ... >   SCHEDULED: <2019-01-11 Fri 07:50 .+1d> > > Recently, when I complete the task it not only moves the schedule to the next > day >

Re: [O] please read: bug when marking tasks done

hello, Nicolas Goaziou writes: >>> Now, we might make its contents by marking them as verbatim, for >>> example. E.g., >>> >>> - Rescheduled from =[2019-02-05 Tue .1m]= on [2018-09-29 Sat 18:50] >> >> that's not a bad idea, but what about the other way round? >> >> that is, inactive

Re: [O] please read: bug when marking tasks done

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Samuel Wales writes: > >> commented repeater cookies does not have any of the above drawbacks. >> it might require a 3rd party tool to update its re if that tool uses >> repeaters. this is not unprecedented. the inactive repeater feature >> might already

Re: [O] please read: bug when marking tasks done

hello, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > cesar mena writes: > >> Nicolas Goaziou writes: >>> However, we still need to move forward. So, I suggest to revert the >>> change about inactive timestamps. Inactive timestamps cannot be >>> repea