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
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 15:25, Daniel Baus
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Amann wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:43:27 +0200, Michael Brand
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 15:25, Daniel Bausch 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 s
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:43:27 +0200, Michael Brand
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 15:25, Daniel Bausch 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-ti
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 15:25, Daniel Bausch 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
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
Daniel
Am Donnerstag 29 September 2011, 14:16:10 schrieb Andreas Amann:
> Hi list,
>
> I encounter the
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-
