On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > Am 02/12/2013 10:39 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> Am 02/12/2013 08:46 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: >>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Pedro Giffuni<p...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello; >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand, >>>>> >>>>> I saw a bug (erroneous result returned by a function) and I fixed >>>>> it respecting the standards, thereby enhancing interperability >>>>> with the market leader. >>>>> >>>>> I am aware that Rob has a different point of view here but so >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> By my count, those who expressed concern about your patch are; >>>> >>>> - Me >>>> - Regina >>>> - Andre >>>> - Stuart >>>> - Günter >>>> >>>> I think this is a non-trivial amount opposition, including from some >>>> whose opinions you might respect more than mine. >>>> >>>>> far neither him nor Stephen Hawking has explained how the change >>>>> would be incorrect and no example where someone has been affected >>>>> by this change has been provided. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You can't have it both ways. Your claimed benefit is intrinsically >>>> tied to breaking compatibility with earlier versions of OpenOffice. >>>> You cannot both claim that it has a significant interop benefit and >>>> also claim that it has a negligible backwards compatibility impact. >>> >>> >>> >>> IMHO nobody wrote that there is a significant improvement in direction of >>> better compatibility. Of course it's just a step of 1 per mill. >>> >>> Some facts from the issue itself: >>> >>> - open since 2010-09-09 >>> - only 2 votes (from author of comment #2) >>> - only 4 mail addresses on CC (all from apache) >>> - only 3 comments (before our discussion started) >>> >>> From my point of view this issue is of very low interest for others - >>> compared with other issues. >>> >>> But as nobody has delievered a valid use case, we're talking about a >>> theoretically possibility of broken spreadsheets and therefore spent >>> already >>> too much of our time for this discussion. >>> >> >> Sorry, if it wasn't clear. I have a spreadsheet on my hard-drive >> right now that would be break if we changed the behavior of 0^0. > > > And what is your *serious* use case for this spreadsheet? Beside to use it > as a test document? And you have it created before the discussion has > started? >
The spreadsheet I am thinking about is over 4 years old, has been published and is used by others as well. I'd also point out that asking your question on this list is not really telling you anything. We've had 37 million downloads of AOO 3.4. Only 400 people subscribe to this list. So I don't think this is great evidence for saying it has zero impact. But again, if you think that situation never comes up in real use, then let's not make the change, since it would have no benefit. -Rob > I'll ask my question again: > Is there more than one who can deliever a *serious and valid use case*? > > Thanks > > Marcus > > > > >>> I propose to keep the change as it is now. >>> >>> My 2 ct. >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Has the patch been vetoed, and if so on what basis? >>>>> >>>>> Pedro. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> Da: Dennis E. Hamilton<dennis.hamil...@acm.org> >>>>>> A: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>>>>> Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro >>>>>> Giffuni'<p...@apache.org> >>>>>> Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11 >>>>>> Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 >>>>>> >>>>>> RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL >>>>>> >>>>>> The proposed change was made under CTR (Commit then Review). There has >>>>>> been >>>>>> a subsequent review and, as Don points out, the discussion has been >>>>>> lengthy >>>>>> and vocal. >>>>>> >>>>>> The objective is to achieve consensus. I believe it is clear that >>>>>> there >>>>>> is >>>>>> no consensus on the proposed change and the proposal fails. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't speak for the AOO PMC. It would be useful if Andreas helped >>>>>> wrap >>>>>> this up. If the lack of consensus is affirmed, Pedro can revert the >>>>>> change >>>>>> and adjust the Bugzilla issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> THE ESSENCE OF THE PROPOSAL >>>>>> >>>>>> The proposal is to enact the breaking change as described on >>>>>> the Community Wiki at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> It is under Changes that Impact Backward Compatibility, Calc and >>>>>> OpenFormula >>>>>> Support. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Exponentiation >>>>>> >>>>>> "The current version of Calc produces 1 for POWER(0,0). This is one >>>>>> of >>>>>> the >>>>>> implementation-defined results that is permitted by ODF 1.2 >>>>>> OpenFormula. >>>>>> >>>>>> "It is proposed to change POWER(0,0) to result in #VALUE!. This is >>>>>> also >>>>>> permitted as the implementation-defined result. This is also >>>>>> compatible >>>>>> with Excel and the Excel 2013 support for ODF 1.2 OpenFormula in .ods >>>>>> Spreadsheets. ..." >>>>>> >>>>>> OUTCOME >>>>>> >>>>>> The proposed change is tracked in Bugzilla Issue #114430, >>>>>> < https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=114430>. >>>>>> >>>>>> A patch to implement this proposal is already included in the SVN. >>>>>> If the proposal is not accepted as the result of CTR review, the >>>>>> Issue will be closed and the patch reverted. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Dennis >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 09:20 >>>>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 >>>>>> >>>>>> ...So I got curious, and I paged back in my email archive, and it >>>>>> seems this is the biggest AOO dev thread since the graduation vote >>>>>> back in early September. >>>>>> >>>>>> At this point, does anyone care enough about changing the status quo >>>>>> as to put up a coherent proposal to be voted on? >>>>>> >>>>>> Don
