Yearly repeats on the agenda

Yearly repeats on the agenda

[SW]

I have entries such as the following:

*** <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day	   :holiday:

which appear on the agenda on the correct day each year, but they appear as:

File:  <2011-01-01 +1y> Public Holiday: Freedom Day             :holiday:

with the date showing. Other deadline/schedule/plain timestamp entries do not
show the full date. Which variable controls this?

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Nick Dokos]

SW <sabrewolfy@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have entries such as the following:
> 
> *** <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day	   :holiday:
> 
> which appear on the agenda on the correct day each year, but they appear as:
> 
> File:  <2011-01-01 +1y> Public Holiday: Freedom Day             :holiday:
> 
> with the date showing. Other deadline/schedule/plain timestamp entries do not
> show the full date. Which variable controls this?
> 

Forget the date: is it really changing "New Year's Day" to "Public Holiday:
Freedom Day" ?!?!

Nick

PS FWIW I can't reproduce either the date problem or the holiday name
   changing problem...

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Samuel Wales]

Copied a South African diary?  :)

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[SW]

SW <sabrewolfy <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> I have entries such as the following:
> 
> *** <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day	   :holiday:
> 
> which appear on the agenda on the correct day each year, but they appear as:
> 
> File:  <2011-01-01 +1y> Public Holiday: Freedom Day             :holiday:
> 
> with the date showing. Other deadline/schedule/plain timestamp entries do not
> show the full date. Which variable controls this?
> 
> 


Apologies -- the above was a copy and paste nightmare between Emacs and
Firemacs. What I meant was the following in an org file:

*** <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day          :holiday:

and the following appearing on the agenda:

File:  <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day          :holiday:

What I'm asking about is the fact that the full timestamp itself appears in <>
in the agenda for this entry, but not for other deadline/schedule/plain
timestamp entries.

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[SW]

SW <sabrewolfy <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Apologies -- the above was a copy and paste nightmare between Emacs and
> Firemacs. What I meant was the following in an org file:
> 
> *** <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day          :holiday:
> 
> and the following appearing on the agenda:
> 
> File:  <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day          :holiday:
> 
> What I'm asking about is the fact that the full timestamp itself appears in <>
> in the agenda for this entry, but not for other deadline/schedule/plain
> timestamp entries.
> 

And I'd like to disable the timestamp in <> for these entries. They appear ON
the correct day in the agenda, so there is no need to include the full
timestamp. Also, this makes the entry very long in the Agenda. Other entries
(timestamps/deadlines/schedules) appear in the agenda without the timestamp text
in <>.

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Brian van den Broek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 774 bytes --]

On 17 Apr 2012 09:25, "SW" <sabrewolfy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> SW <sabrewolfy <at> gmail.com> writes:
>

<snip>

> > *** <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day          :holiday:
> >
> > and the following appearing on the agenda:
> >
> > File:  <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day          :holiday:
> >
> > What I'm asking about is the fact that the full timestamp itself
appears in <>
> > in the agenda for this entry, but not for other deadline/schedule/plain
> > timestamp entries.

<snip>

Hi there,

1) I believe org works much more happily if you don't include timestamps in
headlines.

2) I just added a bunch of holidays / days of observation to my system.
Your use case is better accomplished via org-anniversary:

(org-anniversary 2011 01 01) New Year's Day

Best,

Brian vdB

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1120 bytes --]

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Brian van den Broek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 411 bytes --]

On 17 Apr 2012 09:39, "Brian van den Broek" <brian.van.den.broek@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2) I just added a bunch of holidays / days of observation to my system.
Your use case is better accomplished via org-anniversary:
>
> (org-anniversary 2011 01 01) New Year's Day

Emailing before first coffee is a bad idea. I left out some syntax. See
http://orgmode.org/manual/Weekly_002fdaily-agenda.html.

Best,

Brian vdB

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 608 bytes --]

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[SW]

Brian van den Broek <brian.van.den.broek <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> 
> 
> On 17 Apr 2012 09:39, "Brian van den Broek" <brian.van.den.broek <at>
gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2) I just added a bunch of holidays / days of observation to my system. Your
use case is better accomplished via org-anniversary:
> >
> > (org-anniversary 2011 01 01) New Year's Day
> Emailing before first coffee is a bad idea. I left out some syntax. See
http://orgmode.org/manual/Weekly_002fdaily-agenda.html.
> Best,
> Brian vdB
> 

Thanks, didn't know about those, but that's exactly what I need. There is *so*
much to org-mode and always another section to the manual ... :)

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[SW]

SW <sabrewolfy <at> gmail.com> writes:

> > > 2) I just added a bunch of holidays / days of observation to my system.
> Your use case is better accomplished via org-anniversary:
> > >
> > > (org-anniversary 2011 01 01) New Year's Day
> > Emailing before first coffee is a bad idea. I left out some syntax. See
> http://orgmode.org/manual/Weekly_002fdaily-agenda.html.

> Thanks, didn't know about those, but that's exactly what I need. There is *so*
> much to org-mode and always another section to the manual ... :)

FWIF 1: Anniversaries in the agenda don't have tags now. The tag I provided
appears in the headline only and does not appear in the agenda. Adding :TAG:
didn't solve this.

FWIW 2: The CATEGORY example included in the link above resulted in the category
appearing next to some other entries in the agenda as well. Replacing it with
:CATEGORY: instead of #+CATEGORY: solved this.

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Brian van den Broek]

On 17 April 2012 15:11, SW <sabrewolfy@gmail.com> wrote:
> SW <sabrewolfy <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> > > 2) I just added a bunch of holidays / days of observation to my system.
>> Your use case is better accomplished via org-anniversary:
>> > >
>> > > (org-anniversary 2011 01 01) New Year's Day
>> > Emailing before first coffee is a bad idea. I left out some syntax. See
>> http://orgmode.org/manual/Weekly_002fdaily-agenda.html.
>
>> Thanks, didn't know about those, but that's exactly what I need. There is *so*
>> much to org-mode and always another section to the manual ... :)
>
> FWIF 1: Anniversaries in the agenda don't have tags now. The tag I provided
> appears in the headline only and does not appear in the agenda. Adding :TAG:
> didn't solve this.
>
> FWIW 2: The CATEGORY example included in the link above resulted in the category
> appearing next to some other entries in the agenda as well. Replacing it with
> :CATEGORY: instead of #+CATEGORY: solved this.

I've not tagged any of my holidays and days of observance.

The #+CATEGORY issue will arise in other regards as well. It was a
first pass at changing categories within an org file before the
general category property mechanism was included. I don't recall if
"#+CATEGORY" has been deprecated, but I've treated it as such and been
much happier than when I was struggling with it.

Best,

Brian vdB

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Nick Dokos]

Brian van den Broek <brian.van.den.broek@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17 April 2012 15:11, SW <sabrewolfy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > SW <sabrewolfy <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> > > 2) I just added a bunch of holidays / days of observation to my system.
> >> Your use case is better accomplished via org-anniversary:
> >> > >
> >> > > (org-anniversary 2011 01 01) New Year's Day
> >> > Emailing before first coffee is a bad idea. I left out some syntax. See
> >> http://orgmode.org/manual/Weekly_002fdaily-agenda.html.
> >
> >> Thanks, didn't know about those, but that's exactly what I need. There is *so*
> >> much to org-mode and always another section to the manual ... :)
> >
> > FWIF 1: Anniversaries in the agenda don't have tags now. The tag I provided
> > appears in the headline only and does not appear in the agenda. Adding :TAG:
> > didn't solve this.
> >
> > FWIW 2: The CATEGORY example included in the link above resulted in the category
> > appearing next to some other entries in the agenda as well. Replacing it with
> > :CATEGORY: instead of #+CATEGORY: solved this.
> 
> I've not tagged any of my holidays and days of observance.
> 
> The #+CATEGORY issue will arise in other regards as well. It was a
> first pass at changing categories within an org file before the
> general category property mechanism was included. I don't recall if
> "#+CATEGORY" has been deprecated, but I've treated it as such and been
> much happier than when I was struggling with it.

I'm still stuck in the past, using #+CATEGORY: instead of properties,
but fwiw I haven't had any problem. Like Brian, I'm not tagging these
things.

Nick

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[SW]

Brian van den Broek <brian.van.den.broek <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 1) I believe org works much more happily if you don't include timestamps in
headlines.

This

*** New Year's Day
<2011-01-01 +1y>

does *not* include the timestamp in the agenda, yes.

However, timestamps are *not* included in the agenda from other entries which
*do* have timestamps in the headline.

I've tested with repeating timestamps, timestamps with times, timestamps
repeating with last year as the start date, and I cannot replicate this. I'll
post if I find anything further.

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[SW]

SW <sabrewolfy <at> gmail.com> writes:

> This
> 
> *** New Year's Day
> <2011-01-01 +1y>
> 
> does *not* include the timestamp in the agenda, yes.
> 
> However, timestamps are *not* included in the agenda from other entries which
> *do* have timestamps in the headline.
> 
> I've tested with repeating timestamps, timestamps with times, timestamps
> repeating with last year as the start date, and I cannot replicate this. I'll
> post if I find anything further.

I've tracked down what causes this behaviour -- it's actually a repeating
timestamp which is from a year ore more ago (contrary to what I posted above).

This:

** <2011-04-17 +1y> Test     :holiday:

or this:

** <2010-04-17 +1y> Test     :holiday:

appears in the agenda *with* the <> timestamp included. This:

** <2012-04-17 +1y> Test     :holiday:

does *not* appear with the <> timestamp included. The difference is the
*starting* year.

(I have not included the *day* in the timestamp. I excluded it initially with
the thought that the day would not be correct for subsequent years. Including it
does not affect the problematic behaviour.)

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Nick Dokos]

SW <sabrewolfy@gmail.com> wrote:

> SW <sabrewolfy <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > This
> > 
> > *** New Year's Day
> > <2011-01-01 +1y>
> > 
> > does *not* include the timestamp in the agenda, yes.
> > 
> > However, timestamps are *not* included in the agenda from other entries which
> > *do* have timestamps in the headline.
> > 
> > I've tested with repeating timestamps, timestamps with times, timestamps
> > repeating with last year as the start date, and I cannot replicate this. I'll
> > post if I find anything further.
> 
> I've tracked down what causes this behaviour -- it's actually a repeating
> timestamp which is from a year ore more ago (contrary to what I posted above).
> 
> This:
> 
> ** <2011-04-17 +1y> Test     :holiday:
> 
> or this:
> 
> ** <2010-04-17 +1y> Test     :holiday:
> 
> appears in the agenda *with* the <> timestamp included. This:
> 
> ** <2012-04-17 +1y> Test     :holiday:
> 
> does *not* appear with the <> timestamp included. The difference is the
> *starting* year.
> 

Indeed - I can reproduce that. It happens in org-agenda-get-timestamps,
in the call to org-agenda-format-item: this function takes a regexp
argument, remove-re, and removes any matches from the string it
produces. The regexp is constructed from the *current* date though:

          (concat
	   (regexp-quote
	    (format-time-string
	     "<%Y-%m-%d"
	     (encode-time 0 0 0 (nth 1 date) (nth 0 date) (nth 2 date))))
	   ".*?>")

so it becomes "<2012-04-17.*?>". Hence it removes the date in the third
example above, but not in the other two.

The question is whether this is intended or not: personally, I don't see
any reason for the difference in behavior, so it might be a good idea to
generalize the regexp to match *any* year.

Nick

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[SW]

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos <at> hp.com> writes:

> Indeed - I can reproduce that. It happens in org-agenda-get-timestamps,
> in the call to org-agenda-format-item: this function takes a regexp
> argument, remove-re, and removes any matches from the string it
> produces. The regexp is constructed from the *current* date though:
> 
>           (concat
> 	   (regexp-quote
> 	    (format-time-string
> 	     "<%Y-%m-%d"
> 	     (encode-time 0 0 0 (nth 1 date) (nth 0 date) (nth 2 date))))
> 	   ".*?>")
> 
> so it becomes "<2012-04-17.*?>". Hence it removes the date in the third
> example above, but not in the other two.
> 
> The question is whether this is intended or not: personally, I don't see
> any reason for the difference in behavior, so it might be a good idea to
> generalize the regexp to match *any* year.
> 
> Nick

Thanks for the reply. Do I need to file this as a bug, or does this thread
constitute a bug report? I'm behind a firewall/proxy and haven't setup email in
Emacs, so I would just copy and paste the message from org-submit-bug-report and
email it? I'm not (yet) an elisp-er, so I can't fix this myself.

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Nick Dokos]

SW <sabrewolfy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos <at> hp.com> writes:
> 
> > Indeed - I can reproduce that. It happens in org-agenda-get-timestamps,
> > in the call to org-agenda-format-item: this function takes a regexp
> > argument, remove-re, and removes any matches from the string it
> > produces. The regexp is constructed from the *current* date though:
> > 
> >           (concat
> > 	   (regexp-quote
> > 	    (format-time-string
> > 	     "<%Y-%m-%d"
> > 	     (encode-time 0 0 0 (nth 1 date) (nth 0 date) (nth 2 date))))
> > 	   ".*?>")
> > 
> > so it becomes "<2012-04-17.*?>". Hence it removes the date in the third
> > example above, but not in the other two.
> > 
> > The question is whether this is intended or not: personally, I don't see
> > any reason for the difference in behavior, so it might be a good idea to
> > generalize the regexp to match *any* year.
> > 

BTW, this should be "*any* date": monthly, daily, weekly repeaters would exhibit
the same behavior.

> > Nick
> 
> Thanks for the reply. Do I need to file this as a bug, or does this thread
> constitute a bug report?

I'll let the maintainers decide a) whether it's a bug and b) whether a
formal bug report is needed. 

> I'm behind a firewall/proxy and haven't setup email in
> Emacs, so I would just copy and paste the message from org-submit-bug-report and
> email it? I'm not (yet) an elisp-er, so I can't fix this myself.
> 

Yes, that would be the procedure.

Nick

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Bastien]

Hi Nick,

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:

> so it becomes "<2012-04-17.*?>". Hence it removes the date in the third
> example above, but not in the other two.
>
> The question is whether this is intended or not

I think this is intended.  If timestamps were not removed from today's
date, agenda listing items scheduled/timestamped for today would be less
readable.  

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[SW]

Bastien <bzg <at> altern.org> writes:
 
> I think this is intended.  If timestamps were not removed from today's
> date, agenda listing items scheduled/timestamped for today would be less
> readable.  

If the year in the timestamp of +1y repeating items is the current year, it *is*
removed from the agenda. However, if the year is not the current year, then the
timestamp is *not* removed from the agenda.  

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Nick Dokos]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> 
> Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
> 
> > so it becomes "<2012-04-17.*?>". Hence it removes the date in the third
> > example above, but not in the other two.
> >
> > The question is whether this is intended or not
> 
> I think this is intended.  If timestamps were not removed from today's
> date, agenda listing items scheduled/timestamped for today would be less
> readable.  
> 

Oh, I agree - the removal is certainly desirable. I meant whether the
non-removal of not-today's date is intentional :-)

Nick

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Samuel Wales]

Just so people know that this is a possibility:

I find it useful to put inactive timestamps in headlines.  This makes
it simple to find entries in a sorted chronological list, and gather
information about them, without any unfolding or even (in some cases)
any ellipses.

I think the key thing is that some people sort in the outline and
other people don't.

Samuel

-- 
The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Bastien]

Hi Nick,

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:

> Oh, I agree - the removal is certainly desirable. I meant whether the
> non-removal of not-today's date is intentional :-)

Thinking about this again, I don't see any reason why we should keep any
timestamp in the headline.  I pushed a fix for this.

Thanks!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Nicolas Richard]

Le Tue, 08 May 2012 16:10:02 +0200, Bastien a écrit :
> Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
> 
>> Oh, I agree - the removal is certainly desirable. I meant whether the
>> non-removal of not-today's date is intentional :-)
> 
> Thinking about this again, I don't see any reason why we should keep any
> timestamp in the headline.  I pushed a fix for this.


Hello,

PMJI, but I often used to construct headlines such as

* Some course (or any other kind of recurring meeting)
** <2012-05-08 mar.>
** <2012-05-15 mar.>
** <2012-05-22 mar.>

and then filling the level two headlines as I attend the lectures. This
situation sometimes creates an error message when building the agenda
view, so now I use

* Some course
** Lecture <2012-05-08 mar.>
** Lecture <2012-05-15 mar.>
** Lecture <2012-05-22 mar.>

I understand from your post that this way of doing things should
be avoided, right ? What would be the "correct way" ?

I guess I could do something like :

* Some course
<2012-05-08 mar.> <2012-05-15 mar.> <2012-05-22 mar.>

and create headlines for each lecture as I attend them.

Best wishes,

-- 
Nico.

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Bastien]

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Richard <theonewiththeevillook@yahoo.fr> writes:

> PMJI, but I often used to construct headlines such as
>
> * Some course (or any other kind of recurring meeting)
> ** <2012-05-08 mar.>
> ** <2012-05-15 mar.>
> ** <2012-05-22 mar.>
>
> and then filling the level two headlines as I attend the lectures. This
> situation sometimes creates an error message when building the agenda
> view, so now I use
>
> * Some course
> ** Lecture <2012-05-08 mar.>
> ** Lecture <2012-05-15 mar.>
> ** Lecture <2012-05-22 mar.>
>
> I understand from your post that this way of doing things should
> be avoided, right ? What would be the "correct way" ?

** Lecture
   <2012-05-08 mar.>

** Lecture
   <2012-05-15 mar.>

** Lecture
   <2012-05-22 mar.>

> I guess I could do something like :
>
> * Some course
> <2012-05-08 mar.> <2012-05-15 mar.> <2012-05-22 mar.>

> and create headlines for each lecture as I attend them.

That should work too, yes.

HTH,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda

[Nicolas Richard]

Le Thu, 10 May 2012 08:38:42 +0200, Bastien a écrit :
> ** Lecture
>    <2012-05-08 mar.>
> 
> ** Lecture
>    <2012-05-15 mar.>
> 
> ** Lecture
>    <2012-05-22 mar.>

Sure that makes sense, but I forgot to say one thing : as the lectures
have not yet been given, they do not have a title; thus my outline
really looks like (with the same title each)
** Lecture...
** Lecture...
** Lecture...
which is why I kept the date within the headline (to be able to
differentiate them)

Now I realize that 

>> * Some course
>> <2012-05-08 mar.> <2012-05-15 mar.> <2012-05-22 mar.>

is what I was looking for.

Thanks for your help,

-- 
Nico.