From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcin Borkowski Subject: org-agenda-todo-ignore-timestamp vs org-agenda-todo-ignore-with-date Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:57:00 +0100 Message-ID: <87r3vxqv7u.fsf@wmi.amu.edu.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43146) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y1XpU-0008Ig-7Z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:57:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y1XpT-0000ja-4v for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:57:08 -0500 Received: from msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl ([2001:808:114:2::50]:37638) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y1XpS-0000it-VU for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:57:07 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF2B414A1 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:57:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jTS-lDG3lIcR for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:57:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2001:808:114:6:e1ef:2c78:b009:ec47]) by msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66B2B42097 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:57:03 +0100 (CET) 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: Org-Mode mailing list Hello, I vaguely remember asking about this some time ago, but could not find that thread. It is not at all clear from the docstrings what is the difference between org-agenda-todo-ignore-with-date and org-agenda-todo-ignore-timestamp. I did a simple experiment on my agenda and found out that org-agenda-todo-ignore-timestamp did not ignore entries with a repeater timestamp, while org-agenda-todo-ignore-with-date did. Is that correct? If yes, could it be said in the manual? TIA, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University