Re: Registering deletes and removes as pending changes...

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