From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Recurring tasks and arbitrary properties Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:20:10 +0100 Message-ID: <87h94rb59x.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87wpdo6xmr.fsf@luisa.c0t0d0s0.de> <87tw8rb5rg.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87shobfd39.fsf@luisa.c0t0d0s0.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53193) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVI46-0007mX-GO for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 08:20:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVI45-0003PD-PN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 08:20:14 -0500 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::195]:48992) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVI45-0003Ow-JR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 08:20:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87shobfd39.fsf@luisa.c0t0d0s0.de> (Michael Welle's message of "Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:17:46 +0100") 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" To: Michael Welle Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Michael Welle writes: > Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> >> Michael Welle writes: >> >>> a task like this behaves like a recurring task, i.e. if I set the task >>> state to DONE it is automatically switched back to TODO. Is that the >>> intended behaviour? >>> >>> * TODO task1 >>> :PROPERTIES: >>> :FOO: <2017-03-12 Sun ++1w> >>> :END: >> >> Historically, location of regular (i.e., non scheduled non deadline) >> active time stamps in an entry has always been sloppy. In particular, >> Org Agenda happily processes active time stamps in properties drawers. >> >> IMO, this shouldn't be the case, but I can see a use for it and doing >> otherwise would probably break a lot of documents for little benefit. >> >> So, yes, this is the intended behaviour. > > hmm, what's a good way to work around that? Removing, let's say, the > brackets before storing that value? Couldn't you use inactive time stamps? Regards,