Jan Holesovsky píše v Út 20. 12. 2011 v 16:26 +0100:
Hi Tomas,
On 2011-12-20 at 13:23 +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
i guess 3.4.4 is this: libreoffice-3.4.4.2
beta0: libreoffice-3.5.0.0
beta1: libreoffice-3.4.99.1
yes, really :)
Is that somewhere documented? Or wouldn't
Michael Stahl píše v Po 19. 12. 2011 v 19:26 +0100:
What are the git tags for v3.4.4, v3.5b0 and v3.5b1?
i guess 3.4.4 is this: libreoffice-3.4.4.2
I have create the tags libreoffice-3.4.x-final based on the last release
candidates for the give release. It should make it easier to get final
Hi Michael,
Michael Stahl mst...@redhat.com writes:
you are much more likely to get a reply for this kind of bug on the
dev list.
sorry I haven't got the feel for the right places yet;-)
sounds like a bug to me. guess you should file it in bugzilla and set
the regression keyword.
ok, I'll
Hi Bjoern,
Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com writes:
Any you could try bibisect: http://sweetshark.livejournal.com/7683.html
to close in on the bug even more (and thus make it get fixed faster).
bibisect is brilliant but unfortunatelly dosn't cover the range I would
need for
Hi Michael,
Michael Stahl mst...@redhat.com writes:
i guess 3.4.4 is this: libreoffice-3.4.4.2
libreoffice-3.4.4.2 tag doesn't exist:-( Any other ideas? Are there
any rules how tags are created and named? And branches?
Thank you,
Tomas
___
On 20/12/11 15:51, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
Hi Michael,
Michael Stahl mst...@redhat.com writes:
i guess 3.4.4 is this: libreoffice-3.4.4.2
libreoffice-3.4.4.2 tag doesn't exist:-( Any other ideas? Are there
any rules how tags are created and named? And branches?
the 3.4 stuff does not
Hi Tomas,
On 2011-12-20 at 13:23 +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
i guess 3.4.4 is this: libreoffice-3.4.4.2
beta0: libreoffice-3.5.0.0
beta1: libreoffice-3.4.99.1
yes, really :)
Is that somewhere documented? Or wouldn't it be better if it was
obvious from the tag names?
Bugs happen
Hello Tomas,
2011/12/20 Michael Stahl mst...@redhat.com:
On 20/12/11 14:52, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
could you please advise me how to build and run the test case?
I did:
$ cd sc/
$ make
and it built the tests.
It seems to have run something called CHK from the console log, but
where
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 07:26:21PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
sounds like a bug to me. guess you should file it in bugzilla and set
the regression keyword.
Any you could try bibisect: http://sweetshark.livejournal.com/7683.html
to close in on the bug even more (and thus make it get fixed
Hey,
let me check that. If it is a bug I'll create a test and fix it for beta3.
Markus
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Hello Tomas,
Ok, I wrote a simple c++ based test for that and can't reproduce your problem.
The test (
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=b77902d38d06df87694564ded859733bdb1d4fb2
) creates an empty document, checks that it has a second sheet( bad
assumption there from me)
11 matches
Mail list logo