From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Wales Subject: Re: please read: bug when marking tasks done Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:11:38 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87d0paprs6.fsf@gnu.org> <87wonhcpnj.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <871s5o8pgf.fsf@gnu.org> <87muobcur7.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87woneykuc.fsf@gnu.org> <87y37tzbrd.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87muo88up0.fsf@gnu.org> <87y37qxgn8.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87pnt2neeg.fsf@gnu.org> <87bm4kxqhn.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38304) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gjXs4-0002oi-8D for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:11:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gjXs0-0002QU-8u for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:11:46 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]:37144) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gjXrz-0002Mp-Ps for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:11:44 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id t18-v6so3853865ljd.4 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 15:11:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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: cesar mena Cc: Leo Gaspard , emacs-orgmode some possibly obvious observations: nobody will want repeating inactive to be changed by org for the bug case. those are sacrosanct in that sense. but if the variable solution is chosen as the sole solution, setting it to allow changed inactive repeaters will make logbooks no longer reliable. i don't think anybody will want that. "inactive" means "don't show in agenda unless org-agenda-include-inactive-timestamps is non-nil". not "sacrosanct". while i have no use for inactive repeaters, the feature imo should not be reverted. it's a good idea. imagine saying "the next phase of the project will be on ...". for the emphasis solution, not everybody wants the verbatim or code face in the buffer [can be distracting] or on export ["why that particular string?"]. verbatim is not always set to default. some might want to have changed repeating inactive without triggering the bug and also without using the special faces. inactive repeaters can exist if you have active repeater events [bare ts or ranges] and decide to "comment them out" by making them inactive using shift down on the < or >. some probably do this. yet they will not want them changed inadvertently if they set the variable to non-nil and aren't thinking about that. surprise. commented repeater cookies does not have any of the above drawbacks. it might require a 3rd party tool to update its re if that tool uses repeaters. this is not unprecedented. the inactive repeater feature might already require a 3rd party tool to update its re. so upon reflection i think i'd go for commentable repeater cookies. it has a bonus too: whenever you turn off a repeater, it can be annoying that it zeroes out the interval. commenting would fix that. perhaps there is a better, unmentioned solution?