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

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Samuel Wales <address@hidden> writes:

> commented repeater cookies does not have any of the above drawbacks.
> it might require a 3rd party tool to update its re if that tool uses
> repeaters.  this is not unprecedented.  the inactive repeater feature
> might already require a 3rd party tool to update its re.
>
> so upon reflection i think i'd go for commentable repeater cookies.
> it has a bonus too: whenever you turn off a repeater, it can be
> annoying that it zeroes out the interval.  commenting would fix that.
>
> perhaps there is a better, unmentioned solution?

I think commented repeaters add unnecessary overhead to the already
loaded timestamp syntax. This is, IMO, not a common enough need to
warrant even a minor syntax change.

However, we still need to move forward. So, I suggest to revert the
change about inactive timestamps. Inactive timestamps cannot be
repeated. This is less disruptive than the current situation. 

However, I also suggest to add a new hook, run after repeating
timestamps. With this hook, and a proper, user-specific, markup, it
should be possible to pick inactive timestamps in the section and
"repeat" them manually, i.e., on a case-by-case basis.

WDYT?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou