You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org> on 2022/06/09 15:46:32 UTC
[DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Hi All,
I have a PR-150 [1] that fixes a few issues with the Basic lang in AOO41X.
These were fixes by Damjan back in 2015 in trunk and AOO42X.
What I'm not sure is if leaving them out of 4.1.x was intentional or not
due to not wanting to change API's or whatever.
To me these seem more like bug fixes and not API changes so I think we
should bring them in.
The third issue was pointed out on the QA list recently by Lucien Mathay
**so I included it as well. [2].
The example provided was the inspiration for the unit test I included
for it.
One fix is a bug in the CLng (convert to Long) function and the other
two fix issues with single line if statements.
For discussion:
Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x?
[1] https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/150
[2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/hx09t5f4c4jt3x3fxn5sfkj2g0q9d56w
Best regards,
Carl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Posted by Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org>.
On 6/9/22 11:46 AM, Carl Marcum wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have a PR-150 [1] that fixes a few issues with the Basic lang in
> AOO41X.
> These were fixes by Damjan back in 2015 in trunk and AOO42X.
>
> What I'm not sure is if leaving them out of 4.1.x was intentional or
> not due to not wanting to change API's or whatever.
> To me these seem more like bug fixes and not API changes so I think we
> should bring them in.
>
> The third issue was pointed out on the QA list recently by Lucien
> Mathay **so I included it as well. [2].
> The example provided was the inspiration for the unit test I included
> for it.
>
> One fix is a bug in the CLng (convert to Long) function and the other
> two fix issues with single line if statements.
>
> For discussion:
> Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x?
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/150
> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/hx09t5f4c4jt3x3fxn5sfkj2g0q9d56w
>
> Best regards,
> Carl
>
Based on the positive responses thus far I'm going to pull them in.
Best regards,
Carl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Carl, all,
Am 09.06.22 um 17:46 schrieb Carl Marcum:
> Hi All,
>
> I have a PR-150 [1] that fixes a few issues with the Basic lang in
> AOO41X.
> These were fixes by Damjan back in 2015 in trunk and AOO42X.
>
> What I'm not sure is if leaving them out of 4.1.x was intentional or
> not due to not wanting to change API's or whatever.
> To me these seem more like bug fixes and not API changes so I think we
> should bring them in.
>
> The third issue was pointed out on the QA list recently by Lucien
> Mathay **so I included it as well. [2].
> The example provided was the inspiration for the unit test I included
> for it.
>
> One fix is a bug in the CLng (convert to Long) function and the other
> two fix issues with single line if statements.
>
> For discussion:
> Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x?
Personally, I also think these are bugfixes. So +1 for merging into AOO41X.
Regards,
Matthias
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/150
> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/hx09t5f4c4jt3x3fxn5sfkj2g0q9d56w
>
> Best regards,
> Carl
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 09.06.22 um 19:20 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:46 PM Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> For discussion:
>> Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x?
+1 from me.
> The only reason I didn't include them myself, is that back then I expected
> 4.2.0 to be out soon, and didn't want to waste time backporting to 4.1.x
> which was about to be EOL.
Just to prevent any misunderstanding:
4.1.x is EOL when a 4.2.0 release is finally published. And even then we
can decide to have both branches in parallel for some time.
But as we have no date for 4.2.0, 4.1.x is and will be the most current
release branch.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Posted by Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org>.
Hi Damjan,
On 6/9/22 1:20 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:46 PM Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> For discussion:
>> Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x?
>>
> The only reason I didn't include them myself, is that back then I expected
> 4.2.0 to be out soon, and didn't want to waste time backporting to 4.1.x
> which was about to be EOL.
Thanks for the explanation!
I just wanted to make sure there wasn't another reason.
Best regards,
Carl
>
> Regards
> Damjan
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Marcus wrote:
> Am 09.06.22 um 19:20 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:46 PM Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> For discussion:
>>> Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x?
>
> +1 from me.
>
>> The only reason I didn't include them myself, is that back then I
>> expected
>> 4.2.0 to be out soon, and didn't want to waste time backporting to 4.1.x
>> which was about to be EOL.
>
> Just to prevent any misunderstanding:
>
> 4.1.x is EOL when a 4.2.0 release is finally published. And even then we
> can decide to have both branches in parallel for some time.
>
> But as we have no date for 4.2.0, 4.1.x is and will be the most current
> release branch.
>
> Marcus
Based on Damjan's explanation of why he didn't backport them a +1 from
me as well.
Regards
Keith
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:46 PM Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
> For discussion:
> Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x?
>
The only reason I didn't include them myself, is that back then I expected
4.2.0 to be out soon, and didn't want to waste time backporting to 4.1.x
which was about to be EOL.
Regards
Damjan