Understood, I've already logged a UI Design bug against myself to
revisit this issue post-Preview...along with everything else ;)
On Jul 11, 2007, at 5:01 PM, Jeffrey Harris wrote:
Hi Mimi,
If the rule changed (like an occurrence was deleted, the frequency
changed, or the series' end-date changes), removing occurrences with
local changes. In this case, we create a local "orphan", a normal
not-recurring item separate from the original rule with a pending
deletion.
Just to clarify, if the pending deletion is rejected, the recurrence
rule change is *not* rejected as well, thereby restoring the orphaned
occurrences back into the original recurring series.
Do the items still in the recurring series register some kind of
conflict over the recurrence rule?
There is no connection between the new orphan and the old recurring
series, so if you reject the pending deletion on the orphan, you, and
everyone you're sharing with, will see it as just a single,
non-recurring item.
This is less than ideal, but it doesn't seem especially common and it
was the best we could do at this stage of the game.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
