https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106529
--- Comment #12 from [email protected] ---
> You mean if this can be reverted for 5.3.x?
If the patch breaks extensions, having a "deprecation period" before the
"quirk" the extensions relied upon is removed would seem good practice to me.
In this sense, reverting it in 5.3.x, while leaving it in 5.4 while adding a
visible deprecation note to the 5.3 release notes and a similarly visible note
about the parser change in the 5.4 release notes (as they are being built)
would seem fit.
But I do not know if the patch was pushed to 5.3.x as an effective bugfix for
something (because not doing so immediately would have left broken some core
parte of LibO). In the latter case, the balance would change in favor of
leaving the patch in the 5.3.x series.
As another ingredient to the discussion I can point out that the TeXMaths
authors is being extremely responsive in working to fix his widely used
extension. I am already testing a pre-release of a new version which addresses
the problem.
Still, I do not know if there are other "published" extensions affected.
Furthermore, there may be users relying on "unpublished" extensions (i.e.,
extensions they had someone develop for them only to address some need) that
may be affected.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
