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 648759 - duplication of modified recurring events
duplication of modified recurring events
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 324219
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Calendar
3.0.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: Punit Jain
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2011-04-27 13:45 UTC by Punit Jain
Modified: 2011-06-29 20:59 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Punit Jain 2011-04-27 13:45:53 UTC 
I created an recurring meeting in my local calendar. Later I modified the time interval of a single occurrences. Later I modified time interval of all occurrences.
Which has created a duplicate of earlier modified instance.
Evolution-exchange has the same problem too.

I tried to look for rfc but couldn't find some appropriate answer. What should be the right way to handle this ?
Should we also modify detached instance while modifying all occurrences or we can modify all other instance except that detached instance.

Outlook handles this with warning that "exceptions will be lost if you are modifying the series".
Comment 1 André Klapper 2011-04-27 22:13:40 UTC 
What are the exact steps to reproduce this?
Comment 2 Punit Jain 2011-04-28 06:54:42 UTC 
Steps to reproduce :
1. Create a recurring meeting in local calendar.
2. Drag & drop an instance of this recurring meeting to some other time travel and select this instance only. (or simply open it, change meeting time and save with this instance only).
3. Now drag and drop other instance to a different time interval and select All instances.
4. The earlier modified instance will have a duplicate.
Comment 3 Milan Crha 2011-06-29 20:59:22 UTC 
This sounds just like bug #324219, thus I'm  marking it as a duplicate. I can reproduce it too, and the answer is that the "for all instances" may keep detached instances as they are, or ask a user, if detached instances are found, what he/she wants to do.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 324219 ***