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 593872 - Evolution forgets which signatures are assigned to which accounts
Evolution forgets which signatures are assigned to which accounts
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
2.28.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
evolution[composer] evolution[signatu...
: 592928 594873 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-09-02 04:04 UTC by Matthew Barnes
Modified: 2013-09-13 01:05 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
proposed evo patch (620 bytes, patch)
2009-09-02 15:58 UTC, Milan Crha 		committed Details | Review

Description Matthew Barnes 2009-09-02 04:04:43 UTC 
Forwarding this from a Fedora bug:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520475

Every time I open evolution I have to edit my preferences and assign signatures
to my accounts again, so that when I reply/compose email I have the proper
signature added.  Evolution 2.27.91
Comment 1 Milan Crha 2009-09-02 15:58:02 UTC 
Created attachment 142333 [details] [review]
proposed evo patch

for evolution;

The UID of a signature was always regenerated and never loaded from XML.
Comment 2 Matthew Barnes 2009-09-02 16:09:35 UTC 
Commit it.

Also, looks like we're leaking memory when fetching the "name" property.
The previous signature->priv->name isn't getting freed before we replace it.
Comment 3 Milan Crha 2009-09-02 16:36:51 UTC 
Created commit 5cbcddd in evo master (2.29.1+)
Created commit 91e5b11 in evo gnome-2-28 (2.27.92+)

I think the leak is not there, thus skipping it.
Comment 4 Akhil Laddha 2009-09-03 05:10:43 UTC 
bug 592928 dupe ?
Comment 5 Milan Crha 2009-09-03 09:03:41 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> bug 592928 dupe ?

yes, it is
Comment 6 Akhil Laddha 2009-09-03 10:26:56 UTC 
*** Bug 592928 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 7 Matthew Barnes 2009-09-12 05:05:14 UTC 
*** Bug 594873 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***