Re: [O] Surprising behaviour with agenda file

2011-10-04 Thread Carsten Dominik
This patch has now been accepted - I believe the performance hit will be minor.
I would like to know if this is not the case...

- Carsten

On Sep 29, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Andreas Amann wrote:

 On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:43:27 +0200, Michael Brand 
 michael.ch.br...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 15:25, Daniel Bausch danielbau...@gmx.de wrote:
 It's not a bug, it's a feature (although I don't know what it's for -- maybe
 speed).  However, there is a customizable option to switch it off:
 org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry
 
 Interesting. git blame and a list search leads quickly to this post
 and thread that answers some questions:
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/13096/focus=13129
 
 Okay, I see.
 
 In my opinion the current default is unsafe, since people can lose
 appointments. 
 
 I propose to change the default of
 org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry 
 as below.
 
 Andreas
 
 
 
 commit 967ee90b3b05bad69b84fa3e5411f2d645121d6a
 Author: Andreas Amann andreas.am...@web.de
 Date:   Thu Sep 29 16:14:58 2011 +0100
 
change default of org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry to nil
 
 diff --git a/lisp/org-agenda.el b/lisp/org-agenda.el
 index b1fa5f5..20d55f7 100644
 --- a/lisp/org-agenda.el
 +++ b/lisp/org-agenda.el
 @@ -787,7 +787,7 @@ because you will take care of it on the day when 
 scheduled.
  (const :tag Remove prewarning if entry is scheduled t)
  (integer :tag Restart prewarning N days before deadline)))
 
 -(defcustom org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry t
 +(defcustom org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry nil
   When nil, multiple same-day timestamps in entry make multiple agenda lines.
 When non-nil, after the search for timestamps has matched once in an
 entry, the rest of the entry will not be searched.
 --
 
 
 

- Carsten






[O] Surprising behaviour with agenda file

2011-09-29 Thread Andreas Amann
Hi list, 

I encounter the following surprising situation when using Org Agenda.

Suppose you have an agenda file which looks like this:
 test.org --
* bar
2011-09-29 Thu 12:00 
2011-09-30 Fri 13:00 


* foo
2011-09-29 Thu 15:00 
2011-09-29 Thu 16:00 


M-x  org-agenda-week-view 
then shows:

Week-agenda (W39):
Monday 26 September 2011 W39
Tuesday27 September 2011
Wednesday  28 September 2011
Thursday   29 September 2011
   8:00.. 
  10:00.. 
  test:   12:00.. bar
  12:00.. 
  13:09.. now - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  14:00.. 
  test:   15:00.. foo
  16:00.. 
  18:00.. 
  20:00.. 
Friday 30 September 2011
  test:   13:00.. bar
Saturday1 October 2011
Sunday  2 October 2011

--

What surprises me, is that foo only appears once (Thurs 15:00)
although I specified it twice in the agenda file. If the two entries in
question refer to two different days, like bar in the above example,
everything works as expected.

Is this a bug? If it is considered a feature I would be interested to
know, how to work around it. 

Thanks, 
Andreas




Re: [O] Surprising behaviour with agenda file

2011-09-29 Thread Michael Brand
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 15:25, Daniel Bausch danielbau...@gmx.de wrote:
 It's not a bug, it's a feature (although I don't know what it's for -- maybe
 speed).  However, there is a customizable option to switch it off:
 org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry

Interesting. git blame and a list search leads quickly to this post
and thread that answers some questions:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/13096/focus=13129

Michael



Re: [O] Surprising behaviour with agenda file

2011-09-29 Thread Andreas Amann
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:43:27 +0200, Michael Brand michael.ch.br...@gmail.com 
wrote:
 On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 15:25, Daniel Bausch danielbau...@gmx.de wrote:
  It's not a bug, it's a feature (although I don't know what it's for -- maybe
  speed).  However, there is a customizable option to switch it off:
  org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry
 
 Interesting. git blame and a list search leads quickly to this post
 and thread that answers some questions:
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/13096/focus=13129

Okay, I see.

In my opinion the current default is unsafe, since people can lose
appointments. 

I propose to change the default of
org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry 
as below.

Andreas



commit 967ee90b3b05bad69b84fa3e5411f2d645121d6a
Author: Andreas Amann andreas.am...@web.de
Date:   Thu Sep 29 16:14:58 2011 +0100

change default of org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry to nil

diff --git a/lisp/org-agenda.el b/lisp/org-agenda.el
index b1fa5f5..20d55f7 100644
--- a/lisp/org-agenda.el
+++ b/lisp/org-agenda.el
@@ -787,7 +787,7 @@ because you will take care of it on the day when scheduled.
  (const :tag Remove prewarning if entry is scheduled t)
  (integer :tag Restart prewarning N days before deadline)))
 
-(defcustom org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry t
+(defcustom org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry nil
   When nil, multiple same-day timestamps in entry make multiple agenda lines.
 When non-nil, after the search for timestamps has matched once in an
 entry, the rest of the entry will not be searched.
--





Re: [O] Surprising behaviour with agenda file

2011-09-29 Thread Sebastien Vauban
Hi Andreas,

Andreas Amann wrote:
 On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:43:27 +0200, Michael Brand 
 michael.ch.br...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 15:25, Daniel Bausch danielbau...@gmx.de wrote:
  It's not a bug, it's a feature (although I don't know what it's for -- 
  maybe
  speed).  However, there is a customizable option to switch it off:
  org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry
 
 Interesting. git blame and a list search leads quickly to this post
 and thread that answers some questions:
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/13096/focus=13129

 Okay, I see.

 In my opinion the current default is unsafe, since people can lose
 appointments. 

 I propose to change the default of
 org-agenda-skip-additional-timestamps-same-entry 
 as below.

I find as well that it makes sense. Now, it'd be good to know why it wasn't
the case since the beginning. As said by Daniel, this could lower the perf?

Best regards,
  Seb

-- 
Sebastien Vauban