To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=25341
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jun 3 07:25:50 +
2008 ---
I just realized that under "Version" it still says "OOo 1.1". Might that be a
reaso
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=25341
User nick_08150 changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=25341
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 28 09:49:33 +
2007 ---
I just read the release notes for OOorg 2.2rc4, and there is still no mention of
fi
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=25341
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 7 09:34:43 -0800
2007 ---
> this issue was reported February 2004 with OO 1.1, and now its 2007 and there
> i
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=25341
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue May 10 13:09:10 -0700
2005 ---
I definitely agree, although I could think of scenarios, where it might be
convenie
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=23138
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 22 01:42:45 -0700
2005 ---
BTW, it's still there in OOo 2.0Beta.
Nick
--
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=23138
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 22 01:39:59 -0700
2005 ---
This is related to feature request #25341. I made it a feature request, since I
fig
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=25341
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 22 01:32:48 -0700
2005 ---
This is indeed about the same behaviour as described in bug #23138. I didn't see
it