From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: Datetrees and tags
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 19:04:33 +0100
Message-ID: <87y3lhcv66.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
References: <CAFgFV9OVpJ+8qSxy6E8DLRXxOcp60gbddXG3Tj1kbjU-yPHbTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42694)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1eW4Rz-0005Wv-PQ
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 13:04:40 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1eW4Rw-0006qY-M9
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 13:04:39 -0500
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:51291)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>)
	id 1eW4Rw-0006pX-H8
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2018 13:04:36 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAFgFV9OVpJ+8qSxy6E8DLRXxOcp60gbddXG3Tj1kbjU-yPHbTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	(Fabrice Popineau's message of "Mon, 1 Jan 2018 15:27:08 +0100")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Emacs-orgmode"
	<emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Fabrice Popineau <fabrice.popineau@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Hello,

Fabrice Popineau <fabrice.popineau@gmail.com> writes:

> Actually, looking at org-datetree.el, the several regex here do not take
> possible tags into account, so this is expected.
>
> So my question: would it make sense to enhance datetrees entries with
> optional tags?
> Or would that introduce some kind of inconsistency elsewhere?

It's probably an omission in "org-datetree.el". Do you want to provide
a patch for that (along with a couple of tests)?

Thank you,

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou