Hi Tom,
On Apr 9, 2009, at 2:05 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:
My previous fix was mistaken. Not sure why it passed tests; I
have two theories. Regardless, it was wrong. Current
`(org-outline-level)' seems the correct "LEVEL=" matcher argument to
make `org-map-entries' find only an item's imm
My previous fix was mistaken. Not sure why it passed tests; I
have two theories. Regardless, it was wrong. Current
`(org-outline-level)' seems the correct "LEVEL=" matcher argument to
make `org-map-entries' find only an item's immediate children. (Operated
on by `org-reduced-level' of course)
Applied, thanks.
- Carsten
On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:13 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:
I don't know how this slipped by me before, and I was sure that I
had run
the test suite and validated the previous fix, but I just noticed a
serious bug, and patched it.
The bug is that org-choose uses the wro
I don't know how this slipped by me before, and I was sure that I had run
the test suite and validated the previous fix, but I just noticed a
serious bug, and patched it.
The bug is that org-choose uses the wrong number for "LEVEL", resulting in
no keep-sensible checking. I attach a patch for it.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:
> Here is a bugfix for org-choose that I've been meaning to post.
>
> The bug was this:
>
> When looking for alternatives, it looks at the whole tree, not just
> the immediate children.
>
> Now fixed. Patch is attached.
This seems to be al
Here is a bugfix for org-choose that I've been meaning to post.
The bug was this:
When looking for alternatives, it looks at the whole tree, not just
the immediate children.
Now fixed. Patch is attached.
Tom Breton (Tehom)
org-choose.el.diff
Description: Binary data
_
