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 that recently for malformed timestamps. Do you have an example of one that loses the repeater when you reschedule it? -- Bernt
