On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 09:20 +1300, Jane Atkinson wrote:
On 10/03/14 08:39, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> 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
> 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
That is what I strongly suspect - that I'd changed the libical version
and not realised that it was having any effect. I did a couple of tests
yesterday with the two different libical versions, which showed
different behaviour each time.
I'll get some tests done soon, but not quite sure whether it will be today.
Thanks for the logs. It shows that the updated item with libical1 is
sent to the phone and then phone rejects it with a very unspecific
This may very well be because of the timezone definition, so it makes
sense to fix that first and then check again.
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.