To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
User pjanik 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=81574
User cloph 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=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 3 12:48:50 +
2007 ---
OK, the work is finished now.
Any volunteer for QA?
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
User pjanik 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=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 30 08:54:49 +
2007 ---
fme->pjanik: Looks good for me. Just one (minor) issue: Couldn't we use
CurTOXType
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 29 13:08:25 +
2007 ---
I was actually waching you eating the sandwich ;-)
--
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 29 13:02:40 +
2007 ---
Pavel, you shouldn't work on issues while watching the ESC meeting. :-)
--
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 29 12:05:25 +
2007 ---
mba, fme: what do you think about the change done in cws pj86?
--
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 25 12:53:00 +
2007 ---
OK, so I have did the following in pj86 now (compared to the base milestone of
the
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 25 11:26:55 +
2007 ---
It can't be wrong to remove the usage of uninitialized variables. So I prefer
the c
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 25 11:20:55 +
2007 ---
So you are OK if this particular change affects all users of it? I was maybe
tryin
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 25 11:13:16 +
2007 ---
Frank has already commented on that: without providing a useful default ctor the
pr
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 25 11:08:50 +
2007 ---
fme, mba: what is your opinion on the proposed patch in the previous comment?
Let'
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
User mod 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=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 15 07:54:50 +
2007 ---
I didn't want to change the struct for all its users, but if you think it is
bette
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 15 07:40:00 +
2007 ---
fme->pjanik: Well, from my point of view eRet.eType is still uninitialized after
Cu
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 15 07:20:50 +
2007 ---
fme: ah :-)
The original warning is that eRet's eType might be used uninitialized:
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 15 07:16:56 +
2007 ---
fme: I still don't know what was the compiler's error message in cnttab.cxx (see
20
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 13 14:06:06 +
2007 ---
It seems that fme didn't follow up on the CurTOXType, we should clarify this.
Besid
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
User pjanik 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=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 12 20:18:17 +
2007 ---
mba, fme: so?
---
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 8 13:50:28 +
2007 ---
That was my understanding also. But obviously I misunderstood your latest
comment b
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 8 12:45:57 +
2007 ---
mba :-))
The second attached patch is a manually done diff from the cws approx. 1
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 8 12:41:21 +
2007 ---
Pavel, you confuse me. :-)
How do the changes in the CWS differ from the attached
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 8 12:24:30 +
2007 ---
fme: there were no problems ;-)
I just wanted to review pj86's changes in module s
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 8 12:20:36 +
2007 ---
fme->pjanik: Sorry, looks like I missed the point. So what was the problem with
cnt
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
User pjanik 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=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 8 12:01:48 +
2007 ---
Attaching the current state of pj86 is useless, because it is in the cws pj86
anyw
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 8 11:58:34 +
2007 ---
Pavel, I hope you don't mind: it's unfortunate to have only a patch attached
that d
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 8 11:34:20 +
2007 ---
fme: 1. no problem. Using T() is always safer though.
2. why? 8)
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 8 11:29:25 +
2007 ---
fme->pjanik: Two remarks from my side:
1. Can't we use 0 instead of sal_Unicode()
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
User pjanik 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=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 8 10:55:50 +
2007 ---
fme->pjanik: What milestone does this patch base on? swtable.cxx does not need
to b
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 7 08:31:16 +
2007 ---
*** Issue 82344 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 6 18:48:05 +
2007 ---
Thanks for the patch.
I will try to get that reviewed as fast as possible as we w
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
User pjanik 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=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 5 19:22:50 +
2007 ---
To comment the log, they are still some warnings, but most of the work has been
do
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
User ericb 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=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 5 19:20:47 +
2007 ---
@pkjanik :
In
sw/source/core/doc/number.cxx ( @@ -1263,7 +1263,7 @@ )
sw/sourc
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 5 14:21:41 +
2007 ---
*** Issue 82310 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 5 14:21:33 +
2007 ---
*** Issue 82310 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 5 14:21:11 +
2007 ---
*** Issue 82310 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 5 14:18:54 +
2007 ---
*** Issue 82310 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
--- Addition
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81574
User pjanik 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=81574
User pjanik 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=81574
Issue #|81574
Summary|WaE on Mac OS X: sw
Component|porting
Version|680m222
Platform|All
46 matches
Mail list logo