On Sun, 2014-03-09 at 12:07 +1300, Jane Atkinson wrote: > I've determined that this is another error induced by using libical1. If > I use libical0, then there are no problems with this. This would explain > why the problem suddenly disappeared - libical wasn't on my radar at the > time.
It is a bit harder to see how libical behavior may cause a modified event to not sync. Last time you said that you failed to reproduce the problem - was that because you were unintentionally using libical0? If you can reproduce it now, can you send me logs at loglevel=4 with libical0 (modified event synced okay) and libical1 (modified event not synced)? -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
