[Top][All Lists]

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

[GNU ELPA] Denote version 0.3.0

From: ELPA update
Subject: [GNU ELPA] Denote version 0.3.0
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 17:03:42 -0400

Version 0.3.0 of package Denote has just been released in GNU ELPA.
You can now find it in M-x package-list RET.

Denote describes itself as:
  Simple notes with an efficient file-naming scheme

More at

Recent NEWS:

                          CHANGE LOG OF DENOTE

This document contains the release notes for each tagged commit on the
project's main git repository: <>.

The newest release is at the top.  For further details, please consult
the manual: <>.

Version 0.3.0 on 2022-07-11

  ⁃ Fixed how references are analysed to produce the backlinks' buffer.
    This should resolve the issue that some users faced where the
    backlinks would not be produced.

    The previous implementation would not yield the appropriate results
    if (i) the value of the user option `denote-directory' was a
    "project" per the built-in project.el and (ii) the link to the given
    entry was from a subdirectory.  In short, the references were
    sometimes returned as relative file paths, whereas they should
    always be absolute.  Thanks to Jean-Philippe Gagné Guay for the
    feedback in issue 42 over at the GitHub mirror:

    [ Jean-Philippe has assigned copyright to the Free Software
      Foundation.  It is a prerequisite for contributing to core Emacs
      and/or any package distributed via the official GNU ELPA. ]

  ⁃ Addressed a regression in the function `denote-directory' (this is
    the function that normalises the variable of the same name) which
    prevented it from returning an expanded file path.  This too
    contributed to problems with the backlinking facility.  Thanks to
    Jean-Philippe Gagné Guay for the contribution in pull request 44
    over at the GitHub mirror:

    Also thanks to user pRot0ta1p for the relevant feedback in issue 43
    (also on the mirror):
    <>.  More thanks to
    Alfredo Borrás, Benjamin Kästner, and Sven Seebeck for their
    comments in a related thread on the mailing list:
    These discussions showed we had a problem, which we managed to

  ⁃ Introduced the user option `denote-prompts' (read its doc string or
    the relevant entry in the manual).  It governs how the standard
    `denote' command for creating new notes will behave in interactive
    usage.  By default, `denote' prompts for a title and keywords.  With
    `denote-prompts', the command can also ask for a file type (per
    `denote-file-type'), subdirectory of the `denote-directory', and a
    specific date+time.  Prompts occur in the order they are specified.
    Furthermore, the `denote-prompts' can be set to values which do not
    include the title and keywords.  This means that the resulting file
    names can be any of those permutations:

    │ DATE.EXT

    Recall that Denote's standard file-naming scheme is defined as
    follows (read the manual for the details):


    For our purposes, Denote will work perfectly fine for linking and
    backlinking, even if file names do not include the `TITLE' and
    `KEYWORDS' fields.  However, the user is advised to consider the
    implications on usability: notes without a descriptive title and/or
    useful keywords may be hard to filter and practically impossible to
    manage at scale.  File names without such information should at
    least be added to subdirectories which themselves have a descriptive

    At any rate, Denote does not have strong opinions about one's
    workflow.  The standard file name is the culmination of years of

    Consider the `denote-prompts' the affirmative answer to the question
    "Can keywords be optional?" as posed by Jack Baty on the mailing

    Thanks to Jean-Philippe Gagné Guay for the original contribution in
  …  …

reply via email to

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