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
hi Tomas,
you are much more likely to get a reply for this kind of bug on the dev
list.
On 19/12/11 16:32, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
Hi all,
something has changed recently and it is not possible to remove sheets
via uno calls anymore. It used to work with v3.4.4 but fails with
v3.5b0 and
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)
12 matches
Mail list logo
