https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155660
Stéphane Guillou (stragu) <stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |stephane.guillou@libreoffic
| |e.org
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Keywords| |bibisected, bisected,
| |regression
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Stéphane Guillou (stragu)
<stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org> ---
Thank you both!
This had already been reported in bug 155543, and is already fixed in master.
Glad we've got many eyes spotting the same issues! :)
(In reply to stefan_lange...@t-online.de from comment #5)
> In the bug report I have also reported the first bad commit as the result of
> bibisecting the bug.
> Therefore I guess the keywords "bisect" and/or "bibisect" (What is the
> difference?) should/could be set and also the keyword "regression". Is this
> OK?
That's correct, both should be added when you arrive to a precise commit with a
bibisect repository, along with the "regression" keyword. (Sometimes a bibisect
only leads to a _range_ of commits. In that case, you wouldn't add the
"bisected" keyword.)
Please see the difference between the two keywords here:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bibisect#General_Instructions
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 155543 ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
