Re: please read: bug when marking tasks done

[cesar mena <cesar.mena@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1321 bytes --]

hello,

On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 3:16 PM Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> cesar mena <cesar.mena@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > i'm ok going with the verbatim syntax - rescheduled lines will now look
> > like (w/o the double quotes?):
> >
> >   - Rescheduled from =[2019-02-05 Tue .1m]= on [2018-09-29 Sat 18:50]
>
> Thinking about it, another possibility is to add a variable, e.g.,
> `org-repeat-inactive-timestamps', letting the user choose what to do
> with inactive time stamps. I think it would default to nil.
>
> This would be a more conservative solution; however, this would
> contradict releases notes for Org 9.2.
>
> WDYT?
>
>
this works of course and it doesn't affect current workflows while allowing
for inactive repeating timestamps.

the caveat would be that in the case of repeating timestamps, setting both
`org-log-into-drawer' and `org-repeat-inactive-timestamps' to a true value
will overwrite "Rescheduling" entries from the :LOGBOOK:.  in some limited
sense the two are incompatible (which would require the verbatim syntax).

with that understanding, and the fact that repeating inactive timestamps is
a new "feature" my vote is for `org-repeat-inactive-timestamps'.  this
leaves room down the road, should the need arise, for verbatim syntax in
log entries.

regards,
-cm

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3293 bytes --]