From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: cesar mena Subject: Re: org-agenda-scheduled-leaders and repeating tasks Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:56:12 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87eggueq64.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87d1w82tim.fsf@fastmail.fm> <87mvv6ex91.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87611udfom.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46066) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZqnsL-0008SE-NZ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:56:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZqnsK-00027z-QT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:56:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22a]:34861) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZqnsK-00027v-KL for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:56:12 -0400 Received: by igbkq10 with SMTP id kq10so67121292igb.0 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:56:12 -0700 (PDT) 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-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org hi again nicolas, sorry. i made a mistake updating my tree. i'm quite certain i'm on master now "org-version: 8.3.2 (release_8.3.2-219-g770671)" and the repeater resets itself again. so presently i have a task that looks like this: ** TODO some task SCHEDULED: <2015-08-24 Mon ++1w> and in the agenda it shows up as: Scheduled: TODO some task best, -cm On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:13 AM, cesar mena wrote: > hello guys, > > so far so good for me. > > thanks nicolas and matt. > > -cm > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >> Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> >>> Matt Lundin writes: >>> >>>> In short, org-habit seems to want a + notation for the purposes of the >>>> agenda display and a .+ notation for the purposes of resetting the >>>> timestamp. What is the best solution? >>> >>> Still looking for it. >>> >>> Meanwhile, I reverted the opinionated change in >>> a427098b57c747ecc76feb0593f32922a1e12f67. >> >> Another take on this in 3072cb28e8627066f465f1a4af85da88135d0549.