From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: bug#12905: 24.2.50; org: edit source block causes data loss Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:17:01 +0100 Message-ID: <87wqwm0yoi.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <50A62865.8010904@gmail.com> <87sj7han8a.fsf__16482.9143243425$1354894646$gmane$org@gnu.org> <87wqwnyzud.fsf__32428.3239235685$1355331429$gmane$org@bzg.ath.cx> <87bodzt201.fsf@norang.ca> <877gom7tc3.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <876246skbt.fsf@norang.ca> <87lid262rf.fsf@norang.ca> <8738za44ss.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <878v925aru.fsf@norang.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39756) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TjAXi-0006eq-T3 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:18:17 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TjAX1-0007uN-VW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:17:46 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:57044) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TjAX1-0007tw-Ny for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:17:03 -0500 Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id t49so1003926wey.0 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:17:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Le Wang's message of "Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:36:02 +0800") 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: Le Wang Cc: Bernt Hansen , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Le, Le Wang writes: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote: >> I'll try this patch and report back later today. > > That commit was from me, and I did not test against Emacs < 24.2. I > will submit another patch to add some tests. Do tests get > automatically run on some kind of Travis CI setup? No we don't. If anyone knows how to set this up for our needs, please share. > In the mean time, I think my included patch (logic identically to > Bastien's) is more lisp-ly. Whatever works -- we first need to make sure this fixes it and try to understand why ;) Thanks for taking care of this, -- Bastien