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 308036 - Calendar update time not being honoured?
Calendar update time not being honoured?
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 494394
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Calendar
2.2.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-calendar-maintainers
Evolution QA team
: 267406 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: 327508 327510
 
 
Reported: 2005-06-17 08:22 UTC by Shevek
Modified: 2013-09-10 14:04 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.5/2.6


Description Shevek 2005-06-17 08:22:55 UTC 
Version details: 2.2.1.1
Distribution/Version: gentoo

I am on an incredibly low bandwidth link. I have calendars set up to update
every 1 week(s). Yet tcpdump says that whenever I go online, evolution is
downloading calendars (the only thing I have on homepage.mac.com).

It appears not to be honouring the delay time and downloading calendars every
time I click the little 'go online' button.
Comment 1 Nagappan Alagappan 2005-06-21 04:55:59 UTC 
Shevek: Can you please provide steps to reproduce this bug ?
Comment 2 Shevek 2005-06-21 08:03:41 UTC 
Create several web calendars with a refresh time of 1 week.
Set evolution offline.
Start tcpdump port 80.
Put evolution online.
Watch tcpdump have a lot of port 80 traffic to the webcal hosts, even though
calendars _should_ be newly updated.
Comment 3 Chenthill P 2005-09-12 06:59:49 UTC 
Reopening it.
Comment 4 Chenthill P 2006-01-06 08:54:15 UTC 
*** Bug 267406 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Milan Crha 2009-07-28 12:44:57 UTC 
I'm marking this as a duplicate of the newer, as both should be considered together.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 494394 ***
Comment 6 bugzilla 2009-08-03 23:47:01 UTC 
A cautionary note: While both are definitely related and should be considered together, I do not believe a resolution of 494394 necessarily implies a resolution of this issue, therefore this is not a duplicate. I forsee a world where 494394 is resolved and this bug is not.
Comment 7 Milan Crha 2009-08-04 08:33:14 UTC 
Yes, it would be possible, but I intentionally wrote to the bug #494394 to take care of this together, thus it should be fine.