(In reply to Kai Engert (:KaiE:) from comment #12) > Who wants to give opinions regarding my previous comments? What is blocking finishing up and getting the upstream patch merged? It's not clear to me from reading the PR.
Bug 1754412 Comment 13 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Kai Engert (:KaiE:) from comment #12) > Who wants to give opinions regarding my previous comments? What is blocking finishing up and getting the upstream patch merged? It's not clear to me from reading the PR. OK, so after discussing this: 1) It seems like ical.js does not parse `DTSTART:20220103` date-only values like this properly. 2) The upstream patch does not actually fix that underlying issue, but fixes it after the library has already parsed the string and turned it into an (incorrect) value like `20220103::`. Therefore: Ideally we should fix ical.js. If we can't do that in a timely manner, then maybe it makes sense to put a temporary fix in here.