On 2026-03-27 02:18, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > No objections, so we can go ahead with the proposed change.
On 2026-04-27 14:19, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > Jacob, did I miss something, or are you yet to submit whatever you > have "ready to go"? No you didn’t miss anything, I've been delinquent. I have a v1, but one aspect of the existing behaviour still isn’t right. In filtered views the visually closest entry might not be the closest in line # difference, so this metric has to account for invisible lines in-between. For example, if we’re clocked into ‘Task 1’ the point is closest to the entry on line 6 in both senses: 1: Clocked: (00:15) TODO Task 1 :Tag1: < 2: Clocked: (00:05) TODO Task 2 :Tag2: 3: Clocked: (00:10) TODO Task 2 :Tag2: 4: <point> 5: 6: Clocked: (00:20) TODO Task 1 :Tag1: < but if we filter out ‘-Tag2’ it’s visually closest to the one on line 1, but will jump to line 6: 1: Clocked: (00:15) TODO Task 1 :Tag1: < 4: <point> 5: 6: Clocked: (00:20) TODO Task 1 :Tag1: < I’ll fix this and submit the patch. Thanks, -- Jacob S. Gordon [email protected] Please don’t send me HTML emails or MS Office/Apple iWork documents. https://useplaintext.email/#etiquette https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/opendocument
