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

[Nicolas Goaziou]

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.

>> I think a solution would be to remove the repeater from timestamps
>> inserted upon logging a state change or a re-scheduling.
>
> but that is useful and correct information. it lets me know the state of
> the scheduled timestamp at the time i rescheduled; you are proposing to
> change this to avoid a re-computation for data that i am sure we agree
> should be treated as immutable.

I don't think we agree about the immutable part. At least, the user who
reported the bug solved in af81211fdc01b64449179bcdb77fb1c8ecb3fb94
didn't agree. Inactive time stamps are not immutable.

But the main issue is that I don't understand what useful and correct
information we loose if we drop the repeater part, i.e.:

  - Rescheduled from "[2019-02-05 Tue .+1m]" on [2018-09-29 Sat 18:50]

to

  - Rescheduled from "[2019-02-05 Tue]" on [2018-09-29 Sat 18:50]

> note that the from dates in the "Rescheduled" line is also in quotes
> indicating that it is textual information. no longer in play. changing
> such dates is akin to changing dates in a comment.
>
> what do you think?

I think quotes are not comment syntax in Org, so it means nothing
programatically.

Anyway, I don't really have any other idea besides dropping the repeater
part from automatically inserted inactive time stamps. 

You may want to read the thread in the commit message referenced above
and possibly discuss with the bug reporter to find an acceptable middle
ground.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou