On 04/11/2016 12:28 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 11/04/2016 17:53, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
>> I can confirm that I do not see the problem in 2.1.4 and I do see it
>> with 2.2.0dev.
>>
>> I suppose this is a dataloss bug, and that there is a rule of not going
>> to an RC with a known dataloss bug that is a regression. Although the
>> bug only shows in a specific case and has gone unnoticed for more than a
>> year in 2.2.0dev, it is pretty easy to trigger and it would not be
>> surprising at all that a user comes across it. I would like to hear from
>> Jürgen to see if a quick fix can be made before proceeding with rc1.
>
> Here is a very lightly tested patch. It looks OK to me, but this kind
> of changes has potential to do more harm than good. So if we do not
> have 1/ good user testing and 2/ a +1 from someone who understands
> this code, I am not sure we want it in rc1. And rc1 really needs to
> happen soon IMO.
This is exactly what I was going to do. A quicker and dirtier and very
safe (IMO) fix is:
@@ -75,6 +75,8 @@ void InsetFlex::write(ostream & os) const
// use il.name(), since this resolves obsoleted
// InsetLayout names
string name = to_utf8(il.name());
+ if (name == from_ascii("undefined"))
+ name == name_;
// Remove the "Flex:" prefix, if it is present
if (support::prefixIs(name, "Flex:"))
name = support::token(name, ':', 1);
Richard
