From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karl Voit Subject: Re: Bug: org-time-stamp loses repeater interval Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:43:12 +0200 Message-ID: <2011-06-28T20-40-40@devnull.Karl-Voit.at> References: <2011-06-24T16-30-43@devnull.Karl-Voit.at> <8772.1308931315@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> <2011-06-26T13-23-38@devnull.Karl-Voit.at> <8739ivw8e8.fsf@gnu.org> <2011-06-28T15-28-18@devnull.Karl-Voit.at> <2011-06-28T18-04-12@devnull.Karl-Voit.at> <87sjqt6f3i.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: news1142@Karl-Voit.at Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49034) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbdG0-0006q7-T8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:43:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbdFy-0005fN-Sc for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:43:32 -0400 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:43119) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbdFy-0005fC-BV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:43:30 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QbdFw-0003ma-7o for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:43:28 +0200 Received: from mail.michael-prokop.at ([88.198.6.110]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:43:28 +0200 Received: from news1142 by mail.michael-prokop.at with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:43:28 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org * Bastien wrote: > Karl Voit writes: > >> The warning period still gets deleted though :-( > > You're right, should be fixed now. Sorry when I disagree for one case: When I change each entry in my test data using «C-c .» and clicking on 1st of July ... ,----[ test data ] | <2011-06-28 Tue> | <2011-06-28 Tue +1w> | <2011-06-28 Tue -1d> | <2011-06-28 Tue +1w -1d> `---- ... I end up having this: ,----[ result ] | <2011-07-01 Fri> | <2011-07-01 Fri +1w> | <2011-07-01 Fri -1d> | <2011-07-01 Fri -1d> `---- In the last case, the repeater gets lost :-( -- Karl Voit Hallo, mein Name ist Web 2.0. Gib mir dein Adressbuch und lass mich Emails lesen