After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 320307 - Evolution Calender forgets recurring appointments when you move them
Evolution Calender forgets recurring appointments when you move them
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 317266
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Calendar
2.4.x (obsolete)
Other All
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-calendar-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks: 317266
 
 
Reported: 2005-10-31 13:17 UTC by Shane O'Connell
Modified: 2005-11-08 09:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.11/2.12



Description Shane O'Connell 2005-10-31 13:17:30 UTC
Please describe the problem:
When I move a recurring appointment to a different calendar (via right
click->Move to Calendar), only the first instance of the appointment appears on
the other calendar until you go into it's settings, change something, change it
back (for example, push the up arrow and then the down arrow next to the number
of days that it reccurs on), and click "Ok".

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create two calendars with a recurring appointment on one
2. Right click the appointment, click "Move To Calendar", and move it to the
other calendar

Actual results:
The recurring appointments disappear

Expected results:
The recurring appointments do not disappear

Does this happen every time?
Yes

Other information:
Comment 1 Shane O'Connell 2005-10-31 13:36:59 UTC
I just noticed that if I right click and select "Make this occurance moveable",
and then try to move it, it appears to work, except it seems that it only moves
the occurance from that one day to the second calendar, and deletes that one day
(along with all the other occurances from before that day in the first
calendar.. I don't know why..?) from the first calendar

I'm quite confused now... is this how it's supposed to work?
Comment 2 André Klapper 2005-11-01 09:32:59 UTC
shane: no. :-)
reccurrences stuff is buggy currently, adding dependency.
Comment 3 Poornima 2005-11-08 09:47:19 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 317266 ***