Hi Karl,
> * Marco Wahl wrote:
>>
>> Further I think you can improve Org's reliability (and your perception
>> on it) by investing more energy into Org. Obviously you already do
>> invest energy into Org as your contributions on this list show. You
>> cold go ahead and start reading Org's code,
Mi Marco!
* Marco Wahl wrote:
>
> Further I think you can improve Org's reliability (and your perception
> on it) by investing more energy into Org. Obviously you already do
> invest energy into Org as your contributions on this list show. You
> cold go ahead and start reading Org's code, writi
Hallo Achim!
* Achim Gratz wrote:
> Karl Voit writes:
>> I had several occasions where "git pull origin master" ended up in
>> much work for fixing my large set of Org-mode data.
>
> That's the development branch which can introduce new features and
> remove old ones at any time, you should be o
Karl Voit writes:
> So: what should I do to get reliable Org-mode in future to minimize
> the chances of losing tasks or my trust in Org?
I think Achim says the right things.
Further I think you can improve Org's reliability (and your perception
on it) by investing more energy into Org. Obviou
Karl Voit writes:
> I had several occasions where "git pull origin master" ended up in
> much work for fixing my large set of Org-mode data.
That's the development branch which can introduce new features and
remove old ones at any time, you should be on maint if you want
"stable". If you want ev
Hi!
I want to re-heat the discussion of last summer about stable
releases[1] of Org-mode:
* Scott Randby wrote:
> While I've used Org's development version in the past, I stopped doing
> that due to my failure to learn how to use git (no time) and other
> issues. Now, I only use the stable rel