<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Nick Morrott <<a href="mailto:knowledgejunkie@gmail.com">knowledgejunkie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On 19/06/2008, David Engel <<a href="mailto:david@istwok.net">david@istwok.net</a>> wrote:<br><br>> a record all on any channel rule. In your case, both schedules are<br>> record all on any channel so a tie breaker is used and the schedule<br>
> which was create earlier wins. If you recreate your rules in the<br>> opposite order, you should get what you want.<br><br></div>David,<br><br>Without seeking reprisals from the scheduling gods, could you please<br>
explain why, in the case of such a tie, the overall priority does not<br>dictate which rule wins when their specificity is the same? The<br>frontend offers an easy way to view/increase/decrease priority for<br>rules, but a complicated rule could take a fair amount of effort to<br>
recreate.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>How could the overall priorities be different in the case of a tie? If the priorities were different, the higher priority item would win. The only way you have a tie where the age of the rule comes into effect is in the case of identical resulting priorities on different rules.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kevin</div></div>