Hi all,
All of my past & future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed
under the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license
Nigel Hawkins
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 14:43 +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> Does somebody know why the Time class does either of these and how much would
> break if I fixed these two to be sane?
I don't know, but I would guess that it is used for delta times as well
as "wall clock" times. That would certainly explai
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:25 +0100, Nigel Hawkins wrote:
> Am I right in thinking that the opengrok tool is still tracking the old
> repositories rather than the new "core" repository?
>
> Or is it just not updated very often?
Please ignore that, it seems to h
Hi all,
Am I right in thinking that the opengrok tool is still tracking the old
repositories rather than the new "core" repository?
Or is it just not updated very often?
Nigel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists
Hi Maciej,
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 00:31 +0200, Maciej Rumianowski wrote:
> I picked up this bug and tried to get rid of SvULongs.
I'm the person who's been (slowly) picking away at this, so welcome to
Libreoffice.
> I found for example in ScImportExport::Sylk2Doc and thought it would be
> good to
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 23:26 +0200, Julien Nabet wrote:
> diff --git a/sal/qa/osl/process/osl_process.cxx
> b/sal/qa/osl/process/osl_process.cxx
> index 2535c4c..8695d79 100644
> --- a/sal/qa/osl/process/osl_process.cxx
> +++ b/sal/qa/osl/process/osl_process.cxx
> @@ -477,6 +477,7 @@ public:
>
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 13:45 +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> So, for a hackaround, I guess we might be looking at a mismatch between
> how the internal cppunit is built and the outside world, so to test that
> theory, try this patch to the internal cppunit makefile.mk and rm -rf
> cppunit/unxlng* an
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 13:06 +0100, serv serva wrote:
> I'm curious to know if I'm the only one to have this problem with debug
> compilation.
No. I'm getting it as well now. I wasn't when you first mentioned it but
I've done a g pull -r since then.
For reference, I'm on Ubuntu 11.04 (Natty) 64-b
I've just upgraded my machine (Kubuntu 11.04 64bit) and had to re-get all the
build dependencies. One thing I noticed is that doing:
sudo apt-get build-dep libreoffice
as suggested on the wiki pulls in (amongst other stuff) all of the mono
libraries. Does the build really depend on these?
Nige
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 10:32 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> One thing to note when reading LibO's code (and also OOo's) is that, a
> lot of code that are written by the Oracle folks avoid using unsigned
> integers in favor of signed ones even though unsigned ones would make
> more sense logically. T
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 14:57 +, Nigel Hawkins wrote:
> This should eradicate it from the main code, but still leaves another
> definition of it inside binfilter.
My mistake. There were still a couple of #defines kicking around for
include guards. The attached should get rid of them
Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Hawkins
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:32:28 +
Subject: [PATCH] Remove InvalidSlot svArray stuff in FmXFormShell
---
svx/source/form/fmshimp.cxx | 19 ++-
svx/source/inc/fmshimp.hxx |8 ++--
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deleti
This patch removes the last use of SvBytes from SwScriptInfo. And should
be the last usage in sw.
Nigel
>From 3d1e455ca3ede76235e769b65342f0f31d9f44ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Hawkins
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:12:13 +
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] Remove compression svArray usage f
The attached patch removes some more SvBytes and SvXub_StrLens usage
from SwScriptInfo.
Changes under LGPLv3+/MPL
Nigel.
>From bdbe75e3715a5e553c26edcefb09abff7ebf936b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Hawkins
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:05:14 +
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Remove direction svAr
Hi,
The attached patch removes one use of SvBytes and SvXub_StrLens from
SwScriptInfo.
There are still other uses in there to be replaced, but the bits don't
interact very much.
Changes under LGPLv3+/MPL
Nigel.
>From 8d92a6e07a576a76b429f98c10ab48975a69768f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Fro
Hi,
Attached is a patch to remove a couple more uses of svarray stuff from
writer.
Nigel
>From 54529e04dcd47306724c478d3ac177a63ce24a42 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Hawkins
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:09:53 +
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Remove svArrays from SwLayCacheIoImpl
---
sw/sou
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 23:31 +0300, Andrey Turkin wrote:
> So that would be the next step? Should I squash the two patches and resubmit
> it?
Hopefully, Michael or somebody will push the pair of them.
Since we both seem to be looking at this section of the EasyHacks, can I
suggest we follow Micha
Hi David,
> 4. Special preprocessor magic is required...
>
> 5. sal tests are 'special' with regard to cppunit...
Could you summarise this sort of information on the wiki somewhere?
A lot of the code-base seems to have very little testing in place and
dependency issues make it hard enough to ad
d a date vs. an
> easy hack (with perhaps a sub-portion of what you're working on).
I shall try and remember to do this in future.
Nigel
>From 00f1b9804c1f19c1bb7e6c790910f9005f89321b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Hawkins
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:19:59 +
Subject: [PATCH] Replac
Hi Andrey,
> This is my first patch to LibreOffice so I'd be grateful for feedback on any
> issues.
Oddly enough, I was looking at this the other day but didn't get round
to submitting a patch because I couldn't get sw to compile (for totally
unrelated reasons). My changes were almost identical
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 21:59 +0100, Christina Roßmanith wrote:
> I'm still translating comments and came across a constant named
> SCID_NEWDOCUMENT. When I asked opengrok the only place where this
> constant was found was the file rechead.hxx itself. Does that mean
> that the constant can be removed
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 10:50 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> Here, you've changed the semantics of the code. I've fixed that to
> push_back(nTab+i) which is probably what we need to do here.
Sorry. My bad.
> Your second patch is pretty small & reasonable. It should be okay as
> the only other plac
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 10:57 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> You don't need to remove all trailing whitespaces in those files you
> modify, as that would create unnecessary hunks making it harder for us
> to review your patches.
I wasn't aware I had. I suspect my pesky editor is doing it behind my
ba
are LGPLv3+/MPL
Nigel.
--
NEW Zoner Photo Studio Free - is a free program for every step in the process
of managing, editing, and sharing pictures. --- freephotostudio.com
>From d3f6f0744dd828ca6cebddcbf9598e73ac496637 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Hawkins
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 12:12 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> 2) Remove the Selection mode thing. Unless people are really using
> that.
I use it. Probably not often enough to warrant it being on the status
bar permanently, but it does get used.
Nigel
_
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 20:31 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> Great work! I've applied all your patches and committed as a single
> commit. I hope that's okay.
Not a problem. I generally commit locally in very small chunks and then
format-patch generates one patch per commit. I can squash them tog
Just done a pull and am now getting a build error:
Entering .../build/rawbuild/svtools/util
Making:svten-US.res
Compiling: rsc_svt
f268: Error: The image(s) could not be found.
Terminating compiler
dmake: Error code 1, while making '../unxlngx6.pro/misc/rsc_svt'
Nigel
0286a73efea702a57ada612 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Hawkins
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:27:57 +
Subject: [PATCH] Replace ScfNoCopy with boost::noncopyable
Make boost::noncopyable references private
---
sc/source/filter/inc/fprogressbar.hxx |3 ++-
sc/source/filter/inc/
Hi,
A couple of simple one-line patches to remove a couple of compiler
warnings (format not a string literal and no format arguments).
Nigel.
>From 3aada43619b93fcd7897fcdec80bb6c35dde7cef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Hawkins
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 15:41:00 +
Subject: [PATCH]
Well, since the first lot worked, a few more patches on the same lines.
Nigel
>From a4d81a4e0da75696c8210cecb57a3e4c7bcc0e93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Hawkins
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:41:37 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 10/17] Fix javadoc comments in EmbeddedXMLObject.java
---
.../xme
30 matches
Mail list logo
