[Evolution-hackers] e_cal_new_system_calendar() - creates a new calendar each time?

2011-04-07 Thread Patrick Ohly
Hello! I noticed that in 2.32/MeeGo, e_cal_new_system_calendar() always creates a new calendar, although there is already one. It is defined in gconf as: group uid=1300454894.7178.0@pohly-mobl1 name=On This Computer base_uri=local: readonly=nosource uid=1300454894.7178.4@pohly-mobl1

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_new_system_calendar() - creates a new calendar each time?

2011-04-07 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Do, 2011-04-07 at 10:47 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: Hello! I noticed that in 2.32/MeeGo, e_cal_new_system_calendar() always creates a new calendar, although there is already one. It is defined in gconf as: group uid=1300454894.7178.0@pohly-mobl1 name=On This Computer base_uri=local:

[Evolution-hackers] (no subject)

2011-04-07 Thread David Woodhouse
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 16:31 +0530, Chenthill Palanisamy wrote: This would certainly help distributions which want to stay with Evolution 2.32 for a while.. My only concern here is, while cherry-picking patches how would we take care of the translations and documentation ? Are we adhering to

[Evolution-hackers] Fedora builds with 2.32.2+ patches

2011-04-07 Thread David Woodhouse
I have built some Fedora 14 packages of Evo 2.32.2 with the latest additional fixes, for testing. The main reason for doing this is to fix bug 646164 with modified instances of recurring appointments, since that's really getting on our tits as we implement that part of the Evolution-EWS back end.

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_new_system_calendar() - creates a new calendar each time?

2011-04-07 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 10:47 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: The sequence of events is this: 1. e_cal_new_system_calendar() 2. e_cal_new_from_uri(local:system, ... 3. get source list 4. search_known_sources() by comparing e_source_peek_absolute_uri() against

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Fedora builds with 2.32.2+ patches

2011-04-07 Thread sean finney
Hi David, On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:33:22AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: Once this passes muster, I'll push these patches (probably *without* the NTLM bits, if you're looking closely at what I included) to the gnome-2-32 branches and perhaps start doing a 'final call' for 2.32.3 candidate