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 386668 - contact birthday drops century
contact birthday drops century
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 339813
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Contacts
unspecified
Other other
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-addressbook-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-12-17 02:11 UTC by millerp
Modified: 2007-01-27 17:21 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.13/2.14


Description millerp 2006-12-17 02:10:05 UTC 
Distribution: Ubuntu 6.06 (dapper)
Package: Evolution
Severity: Normal
Version: GNOME2.14.3 unspecified
Gnome-Distributor: Ubuntu
Synopsis: contact birthday drops century
Bugzilla-Product: Evolution
Bugzilla-Component: Contacts [was: Addressbook]
Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
Description:
Description of Problem:
The century of contacts' birtdays is dropped.
(It would help if it made it easier to select a year from 40 years ago,
too)

Steps to reproduce the problem:
1. try and enter 1-Jan-1963 as the birthday of one of your contacts 
2. (hard wasn't it?) now save
3. re-open the contact - it will say 2063

Actual Results:


Expected Results:


How often does this happen?


Additional Information:




------- Bug created by bug-buddy at 2006-12-17 02:11 -------
Comment 1 Tom Billiet 2007-01-27 16:56:50 UTC 
I can confirm this. 
Evolution only stores 2 digits for the birthday, which makes it necessary to guess the century. It flips around at 69. 69 will result in 1969, 68 in 2068.
It's just impossible to store a birthday with only 2 digits, as you can have a baby from 2005 as well as a grandmother from 1905...
Comment 2 Tom Billiet 2007-01-27 17:11:28 UTC 
It seems it's a duplicate of this bug: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=339813
Comment 3 Ross Burton 2007-01-27 17:21:36 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 339813 ***