[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] please read: bug when marking tasks done

From: cesar mena
Subject: Re: [O] please read: bug when marking tasks done
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 15:07:23 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

hello nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello,
> cesar mena <address@hidden> writes:
>> as per the documentation for "org-auto-repeat-maybe" only the base date
>> of repeating deadline/scheduled time stamps should change. AFAICT the
>> patch changes every occurrence of an inactive repeating timestamp that is
>> not a comment.
> The base date of a time stamp is the part before the repeater. IOW,
> every time stamp with a repeater has a base date, therefore
> `org-auto-repeat-maybe' changes them all. I see no problem with the
> docstring.

the _base date_ is not the pertinent part; the _deadline/scheduled_ aspect
is.  moreover this should only happen on the headline.

from the docstring:

  |----------- org-auto-repeat-maybe --------------------------------
  |  Check if the *current headline* contains a repeated time-stamp.
  |  If yes, set TODO state back to what it was and change the base date
  |  of repeating *deadline/scheduled time stamps to new date*
  |  ...

thus we should not programmatically modify an arbitrary date in a
document just because it has a repeater. specially not one buried 300
lines deep in a :LOGBOOK: drawer.

commit af81211fdc contradicts the established documentation. 

see bernt hansen's email in this thread for another unintended
consequence. he can't mark a task that is no longer scheduled as DONE
because there is an inactive timestamp in a :LOGBOOK: entry.

> I don't think we agree about the immutable part.

see below for clarification.

> At least, the user who reported the bug solved in
> af81211fdc01b64449179bcdb77fb1c8ecb3fb94 didn't agree.

but the solution overreaches. again, only repeating deadline/scheduled
time stamps should change if they are in the current headline.

> Inactive time stamps are not immutable.

apologies if i wasn't clear. what should be immutable is a logged,
state-change entry. an existing entry should not change because one
marks a task as DONE.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]