From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SW Subject: Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:39:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41385) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SK5ox-00048A-L0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 06:39:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SK5or-0000of-HF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 06:39:39 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:50345) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SK5or-0000oE-AL for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 06:39:33 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SK5op-00048V-Or for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:39:31 +0200 Received: from ss2.wits.ac.za ([146.141.1.92]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:39:31 +0200 Received: from sabrewolfy by ss2.wits.ac.za with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:39:31 +0200 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 SW gmail.com> writes: > This > > *** New Year's Day > <2011-01-01 +1y> > > does *not* include the timestamp in the agenda, yes. > > However, timestamps are *not* included in the agenda from other entries which > *do* have timestamps in the headline. > > I've tested with repeating timestamps, timestamps with times, timestamps > repeating with last year as the start date, and I cannot replicate this. I'll > post if I find anything further. I've tracked down what causes this behaviour -- it's actually a repeating timestamp which is from a year ore more ago (contrary to what I posted above). This: ** <2011-04-17 +1y> Test :holiday: or this: ** <2010-04-17 +1y> Test :holiday: appears in the agenda *with* the <> timestamp included. This: ** <2012-04-17 +1y> Test :holiday: does *not* appear with the <> timestamp included. The difference is the *starting* year. (I have not included the *day* in the timestamp. I excluded it initially with the thought that the day would not be correct for subsequent years. Including it does not affect the problematic behaviour.)