From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: Bug: / RET filter no longer auto-excludes FILETAGS [6.33trans (release_6.33f.34.gf806)] Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:26:43 +0100 Message-ID: References: <200911251854.nAPIsQjM001980@gollum.intra.norang.ca> <87r5rl4ku1.fsf@gollum.intra.norang.ca> <87my294jmi.fsf@gollum.intra.norang.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NDcUz-00033x-Gz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:26:57 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NDcUq-0002wU-Rn for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:26:54 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38538 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NDcUp-0002vE-Nr for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:26:47 -0500 Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.144]:18017) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NDcUp-0008TB-8F for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:26:47 -0500 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 3so170857eyh.34 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:26:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87my294jmi.fsf@gollum.intra.norang.ca> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Bernt Hansen Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Nov 26, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote: >> >> The docstring of org-agenda-auto-exclude-function does mention this, >> but it is indeed a change from John's original code - so it was not >> in >> the docstring when you wrote this function.. > > Ah! Oops. I was bad and didn't read the contents of commit c6186f4 > (Check all represented tags in agenda for auto-exclusion, 2009-11-20) > before submitting the bug report. I'll try to remember to do that > next > time. > > This change should probably be described in the upcoming release notes > just so anyone else that already has the function defined won't get > caught by it but I'm sure you're already planning to do that :) Yes, it will be in the release notes, in the "incompatible changes" section. > I can't find anything in the Changelog mentioning the case change. So it is me who is bad... :-) > > Thanks for the clarification! > > Bernt - Carsten