From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernt Hansen Subject: Re: bug#12905: 24.2.50; org: edit source block causes data loss Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:41:37 -0500 Message-ID: <87d2ye5asu.fsf@norang.ca> References: <50A62865.8010904@gmail.com> <87sj7han8a.fsf__16482.9143243425$1354894646$gmane$org@gnu.org> <87wqwnyzud.fsf__32428.3239235685$1355331429$gmane$org@bzg.ath.cx> <87bodzt201.fsf@norang.ca> <877gom7tc3.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <876246skbt.fsf@norang.ca> <87lid262rf.fsf@norang.ca> <21536.1355374250@alphaville> <87hanq5df0.fsf@norang.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42492) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tj92r-0001Ry-31 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:41:50 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tj92j-00084Z-6U for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:41:49 -0500 Received: from mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.66]:13748 helo=mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tj92j-00084N-2l for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:41:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87hanq5df0.fsf@norang.ca> (Bernt Hansen's message of "Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:45:07 -0500") 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: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Cc: Bastien , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Bernt Hansen writes: > Nick Dokos writes: > >> Bernt Hansen wrote: >> >>> git bisect identifies the following commit: >>> >>> 206257aa7eb83a0a62f297e7cf0e3a7c32ff6f05 is the first bad commit >>> commit 206257aa7eb83a0a62f297e7cf0e3a7c32ff6f05 >>> Author: Le Wang >>> Date: Sun Nov 18 13:39:51 2012 +0800 > > > >>> >>> Reverting this commit fixes it for me. >>> >> >> FWIW, I cannot reproduce this and I do have the commit you fingered in my >> tree. Could it be the emacs version that makes a difference here? >> >> Mine is >> >> GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.4) of 2012-09-21 >> >> Nick > > Possibly, but this happens for me at work as well which is Windows 23.3 > I think. For the record, this is my emacs version at work with the same symptoms. GNU Emacs 23.3.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) of 2011-03-10 on 3249CTO Thanks, Bernt > > GNU Emacs 23.2.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.20.0) of 2010-12-11 > on raven, modified by Debian > > Bernt