Michael Brand wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 18:01, Nick Dokos wrote:
> > Karl Voit wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Same here with "DE
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 18:01, Nick Dokos wrote:
> Karl Voit wrote:
>> 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.
Same here with "DEADLINE: <2011-06-25 Sat +1w>"
> AFAI
Karl Voit wrote:
> 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.
>
AFAIK, org-time-stamp creates a brand-new time stamp: it does not update
an existing one. You can update
Karl Voit 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
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?
--
Karl Voit
