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 466600 - do not receive an alarm of delayed items after turning on the computer again
do not receive an alarm of delayed items after turning on the computer again
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 589903
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Calendar
2.10.x (obsolete)
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-calendar-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-08-14 13:40 UTC by richard.kleer
Modified: 2012-01-26 22:24 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.17/2.18


Description richard.kleer 2007-08-14 13:40:25 UTC 
FEATURE REQUEST: IMPROVE HANDLING OF DELAYED ALARMS

At present, if I ask for an alarm to be delayed by say 8 hours and then only turn my computer back on after 9 or 10 hours, I don't receive any alarm notification. This forces me to calculate and set a delay time that occurs AFTER I turn on my computer. Now of course I don't always know when this time is, and even if I did, the fact that the alarm can be delayed by a maximum of 12 hours and 59 minutes will often make it impossible for me to select the correct time. The alarm delay system would be much more useful if the delay request was stored on the hard drive, re-initialized when the computer was started up again, and made to sound immediately if the requested delay time has already expired.


Distribution: Ubuntu 7.04 (feisty)
Gnome Release: 2.18.1 2007-04-10 (Ubuntu)
BugBuddy Version: 2.18.1
Comment 1 André Klapper 2012-01-26 22:24:38 UTC 
Thanks for taking the time to report this bug.
This particular bug is handled in our bug tracking system as bug 589903, but we need more information to fix the problem. Could you please answer the question in bug 589903 in order to help find out if this is still a problem?

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 589903 ***