Re: [O] Org tiny changes?

[François Pinard]

Bastien <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi François,

>> It now seems that UNDER\_LINE, while producing HTML, is now rendering
>> the backslash instead of removing it.  [...] I would not be tempted
>> to think the upgrading of Ubuntu has a consequence on the Org changes
>> I'm seeing.

> Can you give us a hint on what versions you're comparing here?  [...]
> Please give us raw version numbers.

Nicely, org-mode/.git/logs/HEAD also contains a trace of all pull
operations and reached commits.  Well, the dates are not in the clear,
which is a minor inconvenience.  My real problem is that I do not having
good memory of times, so even seeing the dates, it is uneasy for me to
be really assertive about when, and so for which commit, everything
worked as I expect.  I could bisect if the matter becomes important.

I came to suspect a mix of Org Emacs Lisp files from the Ubuntu bundled
Emacs, prefix=/usr, and those coming from Git, prefix=/usr/local/.
Right or wrong, I came to suspect this because the installation of Org
from Git goes to a different place (at least for me) now that the
Makefile has been reshuffled.

Indeed, LTTng 2.0 quickly reveals that there is a problem somewhere,
which i still have to identify.  The existence of this tool is worth
sharing: now provided within Ubuntu 12.04 through package lttng-tools,
and is immensely more powerful than strace, and has much less overhead
too.  You might have to add "tracing" to yourself in /etc/group first.
If curious, visit https://bugs.lttng.org/projects/lttng-tools/wiki .

In a word, I'm more likely to think that the problem really happened
after I upgraded Ubuntu, because its Emacs contains Org already, and
because I install Org from Git within /usr/local instead.

Let me to understand more closely how the mix is happening here.  If I
find nothing, I'll likely be back, and you'll read me moaning again :-).

>> * Whenever a date is generated (through "C-c !" say) or adjusted, the
>>   day of the week has a period appended.  That is, where I was
>>   previously getting "[2012-04-28 sam]", I now get "[2012-04-28 sam.]".

> IIRC, this is a change in calendar.  But you don't need to update your
> old timestamps, Org understands them.

Even if it does, the HTML rendering has a non-uniform presentation.  I
would rather adjust all timestamps.  A bit of work, but not that much!
I'll wait a bit more before doing it, just to get a better feeling that
the change is going to stay (and not a consequence of the confusion
explained above).

Thanks for your patience with me!

François