Hello,
Yasushi SHOJI writes:
> /tmp/a.org:
> * DONE org
> DEADLINE: [2016-01-07 Thu 17:39]
>
> SCHEDULED: <2015-09-29 Tue .+1w>
OK. I get it. Since SCHEDULED: keyword is misplaced, it is ignored.
However, the repeating time-stamp is not. Org really sees something
like,
<2015-09
Hi Nicolas,
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 20:24:31 +0900,
Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
> I cannot reproduce your problem? Could you try with -Q (and a minimal
> Org configuration)?
Hmm... That's what I did and got the following:
Week-agenda (W48):
Monday 28 November 2016 W48
a: DONE org
Tuesda
Hello,
Yasushi SHOJI writes:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Sebastien Vauban
> wrote:
>>
>> Yasushi SHOJI writes:
>> > >8 cut >8
>> > * DONE org
>> > DEADLINE: [2016-01-07 Thu 17:39]
>> >
>> > SCHEDULED: <2015-09-29 Tue .+1w>
>> >
>> > >8 cut >8
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Sebastien Vauban
wrote:
>
> Yasushi SHOJI writes:
> > >8 cut >8
> > * DONE org
> > DEADLINE: [2016-01-07 Thu 17:39]
> >
> > SCHEDULED: <2015-09-29 Tue .+1w>
> >
> > >8 cut >8
>
> A shoot in the dark: replace the []
Yasushi SHOJI writes:
> Alan Tyree wrote:
>>
>> Is this the way it should be? The first DEADLINE: shows up both as a
>> warning and on the due date in the agenda, but the second one does
>> not. It only works for me if the DEADLINE: is the first line after the
>> heading. Version 9, emacs 24
>>
>>
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:37:00 +0900,
Alan Tyree wrote:
>
> Is this the way it should be? The first DEADLINE: shows up both as a
> warning and on the due date in the agenda, but the second one does
> not. It only works for me if the DEADLINE: is the first line after the
> heading. Version 9, emacs 24
On 11 November 2016 at 11:12, Nicolas Goaziou
wrote:
> Alan Tyree writes:
>
> > Will you please double check this? On my system, the entry does *not*
> show
> > up in the agenda (C-c a a). If I remove the DEADLINE:, then it does show
> > up. So, for the important purpose under discussion, the ti
Alan Tyree writes:
> Will you please double check this? On my system, the entry does *not* show
> up in the agenda (C-c a a). If I remove the DEADLINE:, then it does show
> up. So, for the important purpose under discussion, the timestamp is
> ignored.
You are right, the timestamp was ignored, b
On 11 November 2016 at 02:08, Nicolas Goaziou
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Alan Tyree writes:
>
> > Suggested wording:
> >
> > In 8.1:
> >
> >
> > timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
> > entr UNLESS is is preceded by a keyword in which case it must be properly
> > positio
Hello,
Alan Tyree writes:
> Suggested wording:
>
> In 8.1:
>
>
> timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
> entr UNLESS is is preceded by a keyword in which case it must be properly
> positioned or it will be ignored: see 8.3 for details.
This is wrong. Only the keyw
On 10 November 2016 at 10:47, Samuel Wales wrote:
> iirc we've discussed whether planning lines (i.e. scheduled, deadline,
> closed at this time) should be flexible. we concluded to make them
> strict.
>
> check archives for the discussion. :) everything goes through this
> mailing list.
>
> OK
iirc we've discussed whether planning lines (i.e. scheduled, deadline,
closed at this time) should be flexible. we concluded to make them
strict.
check archives for the discussion. :) everything goes through this
mailing list.
--
The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com
The di
On 10 November 2016 at 10:36, Nicolas Goaziou
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Alan L Tyree writes:
>
> > On 10/11/16 05:51, Philip Hudson wrote:
>
> > Also, if this really is the case, then the manual needs to be
> > modified. Under 8.1, it says
> >
> > " A timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or b
Hello,
Alan L Tyree writes:
> On 10/11/16 05:51, Philip Hudson wrote:
> Also, if this really is the case, then the manual needs to be
> modified. Under 8.1, it says
>
> " A timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
> entry."
Section 8.1 is about regular time-stamps,
Hello,
Philip Hudson writes:
> On 9 November 2016 at 14:20, Marco Wahl wrote:
>> In particular, no blank line is allowed between PLANNING and HEADLINE.
>
> I just checked, and was surprised to find that M-x org-lint RET does
> *not* catch this. Is this a bug in org-lint, or does org-lint no
On 10/11/16 05:51, Philip Hudson wrote:
On 9 November 2016 at 14:20, Marco Wahl wrote:
In particular, no blank line is allowed between PLANNING and HEADLINE.
I just checked, and was surprised to find that M-x org-lint RET does
*not* catch this. Is this a bug in org-lint, or does org-lint
On 9 November 2016 at 14:20, Marco Wahl wrote:
> In particular, no blank line is allowed between PLANNING and HEADLINE.
I just checked, and was surprised to find that M-x org-lint RET does
*not* catch this. Is this a bug in org-lint, or does org-lint not
intend to catch this sort of thing?
Hi!
Alan Tyree writes:
> Is this the way it should be? The first DEADLINE: shows up both as a
> warning and on the due date in the agenda, but the second one does not. It
> only works for me if the DEADLINE: is the first line after the heading.
> Version 9, emacs 24
>
> *** test 1
> DEADLINE: <2
Is this the way it should be? The first DEADLINE: shows up both as a
warning and on the due date in the agenda, but the second one does not. It
only works for me if the DEADLINE: is the first line after the heading.
Version 9, emacs 24
*** test 1
DEADLINE: <2016-11-19 Sat>
*** test 2
DEADLINE: <
19 matches
Mail list logo
