Re: [O] org-time-stamp loses repeater interval
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 "DEADLINE: <2011-06-25 Sat +1w>"
>
> > AFAIK, org-time-stamp creates a brand-new time stamp: it does not update
> > an existing one. You can update the time stamp by just using ordinary
> > Emacs command ("it's just text"), or you can put the cursor on various
> > parts of the time stamp and do S-up, S-down (bound to org-shiftup and
> > org-shiftdown resp.) to change that part.
>
> If it is a DEADLINE or SCHEDULED you can also use "C-c C-d ." or "C-c
> C-s ." as a workaround to preserve the repeater. Therefore I consider
> loosing the repeater with just "C-c ." on any active timestamp, no
> matter if a DEADLINE, SCHEDULED or not, a bug.
>
I stand corrected: it does sound like a bug.
Nick
Re: [O] org-time-stamp loses repeater interval
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>"
> AFAIK, org-time-stamp creates a brand-new time stamp: it does not update
> an existing one. You can update the time stamp by just using ordinary
> Emacs command ("it's just text"), or you can put the cursor on various
> parts of the time stamp and do S-up, S-down (bound to org-shiftup and
> org-shiftdown resp.) to change that part.
If it is a DEADLINE or SCHEDULED you can also use "C-c C-d ." or "C-c
C-s ." as a workaround to preserve the repeater. Therefore I consider
loosing the repeater with just "C-c ." on any active timestamp, no
matter if a DEADLINE, SCHEDULED or not, a bug.
Michael
Re: [O] org-time-stamp loses repeater interval
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 the time stamp by just using ordinary
Emacs command ("it's just text"), or you can put the cursor on various
parts of the time stamp and do S-up, S-down (bound to org-shiftup and
org-shiftdown resp.) to change that part.
Nick
Re: [O] org-time-stamp loses repeater interval
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 for malformed timestamps. Do you have an example of one that loses the repeater when you reschedule it? -- Bernt
[O] org-time-stamp loses repeater interval
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
