> Google's SoC organisation applications are currently open, and close on
> <2020-02-20>. I know that Org participated once, in 2012.
>
> Would it be a good idea to submit an application to do so again?
> With the rise in interest in computational notebooks, blogging tools,
> and other features
Hello All,
Google's SoC organisation applications are currently open, and close on
<2020-02-20>. I know that Org participated once, in 2012.
Would it be a good idea to submit an application to do so again?
With the rise in interest in computational notebooks, blogging tools,
and other features
On 02/02/2021 10:54, TEC wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Google's SoC organisation applications are currently open, and close on
> <2020-02-20>. I know that Org participated once, in 2012.
>
> Would it be a good idea to submit an application to do so again?
> With the rise in interest in computational
All good points, but I'll just quickly respond to this:
Daniele Nicolodi writes:
> Please understand that the GSoC is not a way to get labor for the
> project sponsored by Google: it is very likely that the time investment
> required to the mentors would be more than enough to implement what
<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
Hi, Tim, popup this thread to request review.
Tim Cross writes:
I am also interested in ob-clojure and ob-clojurescript improvements. However,
right now, I'm a tad busy and haven't had time to review what has been done.
Hopefully, can make some time in
Jose E. Marchesi writes:
>> Google's SoC organisation applications are currently open, and close on
>> <2020-02-20>. I know that Org participated once, in 2012.
>>
>> Would it be a good idea to submit an application to do so again?
>> With the rise in interest in computational notebooks,
Allen Li writes:
> This is a patch adding a query function when exiting Emacs, warning the
> user if there is a running clock. This is useful for preventing the
> user from accidentally leaving dangling clocks. I have had success
> using a modified personal version of this code.
Thanks. I'd
Kyle Meyer writes:
> Eric Abrahamsen writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The C-c SPC keybinding is pretty prime property (it's also, according to
>> Emacs conventions, meant to be reserved for the user, though I know
>> that's already out the window with Org),
>
> Based on my reading of (info
OK. As the patch is over 6 months old, it would be good if the original
author can confirm it is still the latest version and if not, re-send
the most recent version.
Christopher Miles writes:
> <#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
>
> I checked this thread, seems the original first email of
Eric Abrahamsen writes:
> Hi all,
>
> The C-c SPC keybinding is pretty prime property (it's also, according to
> Emacs conventions, meant to be reserved for the user, though I know
> that's already out the window with Org),
Based on my reading of (info "(elisp)Key Binding Conventions"), I think
Stefan Kangas writes:
> The attached patch removes support for missing bookmark-after-jump-hook,
> which was introduced in Emacs 22. This can be dropped unless there is a
> need for this feature to support versions earlier than Emacs 22
> (released in June 2007).
No, no need. The oldest
The attached patch removes support for missing bookmark-after-jump-hook,
which was introduced in Emacs 22. This can be dropped unless there is a
need for this feature to support versions earlier than Emacs 22
(released in June 2007).
From 89947f5152afecb276010fa52fa025a2bb63b66f Mon Sep 17
Kyle Meyer writes:
> Pushed (3e64d3475).
Thank you!
>> As far as I can tell, that is not fully possible today, even with this
>> patch. The reason is that time *range* information entered at the prompt
>> generated by :time-prompt gets thrown away. The reason for *that* is
>> that
OK, will push it up the todo list. Where can I get the latest version of
the patch or has it been added into the org git repo?
Christopher Miles writes:
> <#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
>
> Hi, Tim, popup this thread to request review.
>
> Tim Cross writes:
>
> I am also interested in
>>> Google's SoC organisation applications are currently open, and close on
>>> <2020-02-20>. I know that Org participated once, in 2012.
>>>
>>> Would it be a good idea to submit an application to do so again?
>>> With the rise in interest in computational notebooks, blogging tools,
>>> and
John Kitchin writes:
> I discovered that it matters a lot which block you cache. You have to
> cache the long running block. I had put cache on the block with noweb
> expansion, and then the long running block still runs every time. That
> was a surprise to me, since nothing was changing in that
in recent maint [past few weeks perhaps?].
when i refile a task or goto a task using org-refile, sometimes refile
is quite slow. then it sometimes sends me to an impossible location.
by "impossible" i mean that either my refile targets variable is not
respected or my refile verify function is
maint.
i have an old computer, which usually has no problems if i am careful,
except org is recently somewhat slower.
with agenda batch archiving, however, even for just a few entries, the
cpu overheats.
the cpu never gets above 28% in a dual core in gkrellm, meaning that
only 1/4 of total
<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
I checked this thread, seems the original first email of thread contains the
patch. And it's not merged into Org git yet.
Tim Cross writes:
OK, will push it up the todo list. Where can I get the latest version of the
patch or has it been added into the org
19 matches
Mail list logo
