Bug 190910 - l10n: message list activity aggregation assumes week starts on monday
Summary: l10n: message list activity aggregation assumes week starts on monday
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: kmail
Classification: Applications
Component: new message list (show other bugs)
Version: 1.11.2
Platform: Debian testing Linux
: NOR normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Szymon Stefanek
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-04-28 13:33 UTC by Shai
Modified: 2009-05-27 09:14 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Shai 2009-04-28 13:33:46 UTC
Version:            (using KDE 4.2.2)
OS:                Linux
Installed from:    Debian testing/unstable Packages

In the message list, I select the Aggregation Mode to be "Current Activity, Threaded". This groups the messages into categories such as "Today", "Yesterday", "Last week".

However, it seems that the division to weeks assumes the week starts on Monday. For example, today, Tuesday 28/4, messages from Sunday 26/4 show up under "Last Week". Here in Israel, weeks start on Sunday, and the "Country/Region&Language"/"Time&Dates" settings are correct; the messages should be under "This week" or "Two days ago" or whatever.

(of course, the problem extends further, messages from Sunday 19/4, which should be under "last week", are under "two weeks ago" etc).
Comment 1 Jonathan Armond 2009-05-25 11:32:21 UTC
I've posted a patch that fixes this bug at reviewboard.kde.org.
Comment 2 Thomas McGuire 2009-05-25 22:28:39 UTC
SVN commit 972854 by tmcguire:

Use 'first working day of week' setting to aggregate messages by date.

Patch by Jonathan Armond <jon dot armond at gmail.com>, thanks!

BUG: 190910


 M  +7 -4      model.cpp  


WebSVN link: http://websvn.kde.org/?view=rev&revision=972854
Comment 3 Shai 2009-05-27 09:14:53 UTC
Indeed it now works for me. Should I (the reporter) change the status to "Verified", or wait for a more formal QA verification?

Thanks for the fix,

Shai.