From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Nicolas Richard" Subject: bug with timestamp fontification (bisected to b6b509b) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:54:54 +0100 Message-ID: <8738wh69bl.fsf@yahoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44332) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UAjLf-0007BR-Pp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:55:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UAjLa-00023A-R0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:55:15 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:37752) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UAjLa-00022p-KV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:55:10 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UAjLr-0001Wg-FK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:55:27 +0100 Received: from geodiff-mac3.ulb.ac.be ([164.15.131.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:55:27 +0100 Received: from theonewiththeevillook by geodiff-mac3.ulb.ac.be with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:55:27 +0100 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 This is bisected to b6b509b (which 467f7ff claims to fix, and indeed does partially) Reproduce by doing: emacs -q -L /home/youngfrog/sources/org-mode/lisp/ -f org-mode --eval '(insert "<2012-02-27 Wed.>")' => timestamp is not fontified. or instead emacs -q -L /home/youngfrog/sources/org-mode/lisp/ -f org-mode --eval '(insert "Whatever\n<2012-02-27 Wed.>")' => timestamp is fontified but fontification is lost if you hit RET I tried to patch but didn't succeed. The newline (or beginning of buffer in first case, but that's probably unimportant ?) seems to be the problem. Any idea on that ? -- N.