On Mar 22, 2007, at 17:45, Jason F. McBrayer wrote:
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mar 22, 2007, at 16:21, Jason F. McBrayer wrote:
I'm not sure what would be better. But this reminds me that we
need a tty compatibility binding for org-shiftcontrolright and
org-shiftcontrolle
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mar 22, 2007, at 16:21, Jason F. McBrayer wrote:
>> I'm not sure what would be better. But this reminds me that we
>> need a tty compatibility binding for org-shiftcontrolright and
>> org-shiftcontrolleft.
>
> Agh. Yes. Proposals?
Well, t
On Mar 22, 2007, at 16:21, Jason F. McBrayer wrote:
If you send me a complex patch, we need to get your papers with the
FSF first, or I cannot install the fixes into Emacs. I already have
the papers from David and Piotr, so if you plan to contribute code
in the future, maybe we should go ahead
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thank you very much, but this is a bit tricky, so maybe I should do
> this.
I'd guess it would be better for you to do it. I had a look at what
would be involved, and a working change would touch a lot more places
in the file than I thought it would,
On Mar 22, 2007, at 0:28, Jason F. McBrayer wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 23:21 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
On Mar 21, 2007, at 15:27, Jason F. McBrayer wrote:
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
All I really need it for is multiple DONE states (e.g. COMPLETED
vs. CANCELLED). T
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 23:21 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 2007, at 15:27, Jason F. McBrayer wrote:
> >
> >> Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> All I really need it for is multiple DONE states (e.g. COMPLETED
> >> vs. CANCELLED). The current implementation works okay
On Mar 21, 2007, at 16:11, Carsten Dominik wrote:
On Mar 21, 2007, at 15:27, Jason F. McBrayer wrote:
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So I think this solution is much more general and
workable. Lets see what other people have to say about it.
All I really need it for is mult
On 3/21/07, Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007-03-21, Carsten Dominik said:
> - You can now use multiple sets of TODO keywords in the same
> buffer. For example, you may put the following three lines
> into a file:
>
> #+SEQ_TODO: TODO DONE
> #+SEQ_TODO: REPORT BUG KNO
On Mar 21, 2007, at 15:27, Jason F. McBrayer wrote:
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So I think this solution is much more general and
workable. Lets see what other people have to say about it.
All I really need it for is multiple DONE states (e.g. COMPLETED
vs. CANCELLED). The
It looks like there might some more discussion here, but I'd like
to chime in and say I kinda like what you have done with the multiple
sequences. Of course, I'm not using some of the more advanced
features such as logging state changes. For my simple use of TODO
items, this is pretty nice.
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So I think this solution is much more general and
> workable. Lets see what other people have to say about it.
All I really need it for is multiple DONE states (e.g. COMPLETED
vs. CANCELLED). The current implementation works okay for that,
though it
On Mar 21, 2007, at 11:21, Leo wrote:
I feel this too complicated.
First, I don't think it is complicated at all, try it out.
I have already gotten used to it:
C-S-right to select the right sequence initially. After that,
everything works exactly as before. My description sounds
complicated
On 2007-03-21, Carsten Dominik said:
> - You can now use multiple sets of TODO keywords in the same
> buffer. For example, you may put the following three lines
> into a file:
>
> #+SEQ_TODO: TODO DONE
> #+SEQ_TODO: REPORT BUG KNOWNCAUSE RESOLVED
> #+TYP_TODO: Fred Lau
13 matches
Mail list logo
