On May 24, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> Carsten Dominik writes:
>
>>> Basically, there should be a possibility to let the link creator
>>> functions return "yes, I was the right handler, but because of reason X,
>>> I couldn't create a link". Is there something like that?
>>
>> Wha
Carsten Dominik writes:
>> Basically, there should be a possibility to let the link creator
>> functions return "yes, I was the right handler, but because of reason X,
>> I couldn't create a link". Is there something like that?
>
> What happens if you return t in this case, without calling
> org
On May 24, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> Leo writes:
>
> Hi!
>
>>> is there an agreement here on whether the patch appearing in this
>>> thread
>>>
>>> http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/783/
>>>
>>> should be applied or not?
>>
>> I don't really know.
>
> Ditto. :-)
>
> Th
Leo writes:
Hi!
>> is there an agreement here on whether the patch appearing in this
>> thread
>>
>> http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/783/
>>
>> should be applied or not?
>
> I don't really know.
Ditto. :-)
The problem is that creating a link to a message with no Gcc errors
right now. F
On 2011-05-24 11:19 +0800, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> is there an agreement here on whether the patch appearing in this thread
>
> http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/783/
>
> should be applied or not?
>
> - Carsten
I don't really know.
The patch merely goes back to the same behaviour before the
Hi,
is there an agreement here on whether the patch appearing in this thread
http://patchwork.newartisans.com/patch/783/
should be applied or not?
- Carsten
On 8.5.2011, at 09:53, Leo wrote:
> On 2011-05-05 17:19 +0800, Ulf Stegemann wrote:
> [elide 4 lines]
>> This sounds interesting (at le
On 2011-05-05 17:19 +0800, Ulf Stegemann wrote:
[elide 4 lines]
> This sounds interesting (at least for those that use gmail). Is the URL
> where the archived message will be available predictable, i.e. is it
> possible to know it while still composing the message? If yes, it would
> be great to
Leo wrote:
> On 2011-05-05 15:02 +0800, Ulf Stegemann wrote:
>> Hmmm, is it? Suppose that linking to a message yet to be archived
>> wouldn't be there, then `org-store-link' will tell you `org-store-link:
>> Cannot link to a buffer which is not visiting a file' when called in a
>> message buffer
On 2011-05-05 15:59 +0800, Leo wrote:
> I believe the following patch is due.
Think about it some more, there is a reason to signal an error when
calling org-store-link interactively but it should not when invoked by
org-capture. Otherwise it will get in the way.
Leo
On 2011-05-05 15:02 +0800, Ulf Stegemann wrote:
> Hmmm, is it? Suppose that linking to a message yet to be archived
> wouldn't be there, then `org-store-link' will tell you `org-store-link:
> Cannot link to a buffer which is not visiting a file' when called in a
> message buffer (like in any other
Leo wrote:
> On 2011-05-04 21:14 +0800, Ulf Stegemann wrote:
>> The idea behind `org-store-link' (which is triggered by `org-capture')
>> in message mode is to store a link to a /sent/ message even though the
>> message has not been sent by the time you call `org-store-link'. This
>> currently w
On 2011-05-04 21:14 +0800, Ulf Stegemann wrote:
> The idea behind `org-store-link' (which is triggered by `org-capture')
> in message mode is to store a link to a /sent/ message even though the
> message has not been sent by the time you call `org-store-link'. This
> currently works only with Gnus
Leo wrote:
> I am running orgmode from git 2011-04-29 on Emacs 23.3.50.
>
> In a message mode buffer, M-x org-capture to get the following error:
>
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (error "Can not create link: No Gcc header
> found.")
> signal(error ("Can not create link: No Gcc header found.")
13 matches
Mail list logo
