https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104771
--- Comment #6 from Xisco Faulí <xiscofa...@libreoffice.org> ---
(In reply to Jan Holesovsky from comment #5)
> Xisco: Too bad I did not create a unit test at the time of the fix, we could
> be sure now if reverting is OK :-( [because it is possible that something
> else has changed making the previous fix obsolete]
>
> Xisco: would it be possible to isolate what exactly my patch fixed?
> Unfortunately I don't remember; ideally if you could try in the bibisect
> repo how the document from bug 61272 looked like before
> 4ba2b2ae62276ab7b40ba5730d631ad4b3fd6ac8 and after that (ie. what was the
> exact difference that my patch fixed)?
Hi Jan,
I've done some bisections here and the files in bug 61272 look the same even
with 4ba2b2ae62276ab7b40ba5730d631ad4b3fd6ac8 or without it. However, the real
fix for bug 61272 is done by 198b17dc5e182dfb2e5c930458764c7b3e6c914f. So I
can't really tell what 4ba2b2ae62276ab7b40ba5730d631ad4b3fd6ac8 fixes using the
files in bug 61272. Do you know how to get file n#417818 ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
