To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=88599
User ab changed the following:
What |Old value |New value
================================================================================
Status|NEW |STARTED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target milestone|--- |OOo 3.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 28 07:44:00 +0000
2008 -------
I'm not so sure if removing it is the right thing to do as then even the
code will break that use it without depending on the order of the numeric
value, although I admit I can't think of many other sensible use cases.
Which advantage do you see in breaking the basic code because of a comple-
tely missing GetSolarVersion compared to breaking it because of the smal-
ler number?
Anyway the function just returns the SUPD defined in the building environ-
ment and this simply is 300 for DEV300. Maybe it could return 3000 instead
for 3.0 to keep the compatibility and we can add another function like
GetOOOBaseVersion returning the value of OOOBaseVersion from version.ini,
"3.0" in this case.
STARTED, OOo 3.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
