On Sun, 2014-08-31 at 15:45 -0700, Todd Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Todd Wilson <[email protected]> > wrote:
> Thanks for this assessment. I appreciate the effort you've put > into getting me to this point. At least I can continue to use > SE to back-up my Zimbra calendar, which is what I've been > doing. And I'll see if I can run the database tests you asked > me for previously. > > I reported all of that too Google engineers and was > told that they are > working on it. It might not be fixed next week, but it > shouldn't take > months or years either (as in the past). I'll keep an > eye on this. I checked again and the biggest issue on the server, not being able to update individual events in a meeting series, is now fixed. The remaining issues are lack of support for removing individual events from such a series (one can only remove the entire series, removing some has no effect) and all-day recurrence exceptions (RECURRENCE-ID gets mangled - this case should be rare in practice). The removal issue does not affect "refresh-from-local" syncs, only two-way syncs where individual items were removed. So again, this should not be an issue in practice. Overall it seems that Google CaldDAV now can also be used in two-way mode. > Thanks! If they get the problems fixed that will be great. > Also, I'd be very interested in knowing what they think of > allowing users to subscribe to password-protected calendars -- > it seems like it would be easy to do, as easy as respecting > username and password fields in the calendar URL and using > already-existing features of their HTTP(S) client library. For > example, do they have a good reason to refuse to implement > this? Is it planned but low priority? Or is it something we > might also expect relatively soon? > > > Please ping me again end of August. I forgot to check this earlier and ask Google. The calendar team is active in StackOverflow, so I have asked there: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25669144/google-caldav-access-to-shared-calendars -- 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
