From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rich E Subject: workflow states Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:04:06 +0100 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LV5lz-0006P4-JJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:04:11 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LV5lx-0006Mw-RU for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:04:11 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36671 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LV5lx-0006Mh-Mm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:04:09 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.157]:20529) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LV5lw-0002u7-Sq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:04:09 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l27so214606fgb.30 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 07:04:06 -0800 (PST) List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi, I'd like to simply add a VERIFY workflow state between TODO and DONE in my org files. I am looking at section 5.2.1 of the manual for how to do this, but it is not working like I would expect. Here is the code I have in my .emacs file: (setq org-todo-keywords '("TODO" "VERIFY" "DONE") org-todo-interpretation 'sequence) Here is my todo item: ** TODO make testing scripts ..I then hit C-c C-t and I get: ** VERIFY make testing scripts .. but VERIFY is not color coded or bold, like TODO and DONE. I then hit C-c C-t again and get: ** TODO VERIFY make testing scripts .. and I hit it again and get: ** TODO VERIFY VERIFY make testing scripts .. where VERIFY is never bold or color coded. anyone know how to do what I am trying? It seems basic enough. regards, Rich