Annoying "Conflict" dialogs in Kontact

[ITSEF Admin]

On Tuesday 24 October 2006 22:00, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Thursday 19 October 2006 11:49, T. Ribbrock wrote:
> > several of our users (all using the proko2 client, SVN 591884 -
>
> This is after 2.1.4 as far as I can see.
> Feel free to also report to kolab-devel or open an issue about it.

Will do - I don't want to write up an issue yet, as it's to vague, but I'll 
open a new thread on kolab-devel.


> > Every now and then, they will get a "Conflict" dialog for one or more
> > appointment(s), stating that the appointment has been changed both on the
> > server and locally. As all of them are logged in only once, this is of
> > course nonsense - there should be no other process at all accessing those
> > appointments usually, those appointments haven't been changed at all.
>
> Two scenarios:
> a) Kontact crashes and leaves bad appointments in the local cache
> which get synced up.

I know of at least one case where there was no previous crash, at least not 
while I was there. The conflict came "out of the blue", so to say.


> b) Two people edit the same event simultaniously, the second person
> to sync will get the conflict. This is correct behaviour.

Agreed, but that was not the case here.


> Or do you mean they get conflicts in folder where only one person
> has write access?

Correct. None of the users involved has any calendar folder with write access 
for others - only read access.


> > One more piece of the puzzle: We use NFS mounted home directories, but
> > ~/.kde/share/config and ~/.kde/share/apps/kmail/dimap are both located on
> > the local drive using symlinks.
>
> It could be worth a try to completly put .kde on a local drive.

There is absolutely no way I'm going down that road... It's already a major 
headache keeping ~/.kde/config local in a way that still enables people to 
consistently use other machines if they need to - I don't even want to 
*think* about the implications of putting all of ~/.kde locally and keeping 
it in sync/up-to-date so that the whole idea of "$HOME on file server" still 
works - sorry.


> I have not seen conflicts on folders where only person has write
> permissions.

The problem is that it's sporadic and difficult to reproduce. The *biggest* 
problem is that it doesnt go away - most users wouldn't mind so much if such 
a dialog appears if it's not too often, but the fact that the dialog doesn't 
help and doesn't go away drives them round the bend (and subsequently, 
me...).

Cheerio,

Thomas