https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117994
--- Comment #10 from Xisco Faulí <xiscofa...@libreoffice.org> ---
(In reply to Justin L from comment #9)
> (In reply to Xisco Faulí from comment #8)
> > I found some regressions introduced
> > by 091aedc63de2f6c8f0f4c60dd1fa93fe4c6ddde4. What should I do with them?
> Add a few examples to this document, especially if the problem manifests
> itself in a different way.
>
> > What is the reason behind pushing a patch that will be reverted one month
> > later? IMHO, this shouldn't have been done unless there is a good reason to
> > do so...
> This area is extremely dangerous to work in (as evidenced by Caolan ignoring
> an old regression that accumulated tons of varied examples), so although the
> fix seemed good on all the documents I tested, and passed existing unit
> tests, I don't trust it. Plus, once it is reverted, it will provide examples
> of things it fixed, but are now "broken" again.
Ok, fair enough.
What about not reverting it and fixing the regression instead? In any other
case, it's the usual workflow.
So far I've found 2 different issues but I haven't checked all the results
yet.I would prefer to report them separately, otherwise this bug would end up
being a mess...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
