--- Comment #6 from hardcoder <> ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #2)
> asserts some "bug of attitude" - which also claims something the OP doesn't
> know about (specifically, what "team" thinks of the feature, especially
> there's no "team" in strong sense of the word, and so every contributor who
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #3)
> in and corrected me, and fixed the bug. So - it isn't "misunderstood" by
> "team" (while it could be by individual contributors), and also not
Of course my statements shouldn't be based on telepathy or delusion, and my
point was not about specific minds like yours. I guess I couldn't believe the
state of maturity of the feature, given all these years, and given the other
apps, so LibreOffice remains unworkable for iteration. After the initial
frustration I searched about it in more than one LibreOffice site, like I said,
and anyway it's all out there for you all to see -- what's probably missing is
someone involved that has (or gets) a different view, and sees that several
things are wrong. Every time I refer to LibreOffice team, I refer to what I've
seen on the sites. Although I'll never force you to think or speak the same way
as I did, I still think what I described as some non-computer bug has the
attributes of a bug. Of course, whether it will auto-heal in a decentralized
manner, or needs to be tracked, is a different story.

(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #2)
> Here I do not declare absence of specific bugs in the feature; nor even that
> there's no flaw in its fundamental design - it's just impossible to
> understand what the flaw(s) are from this report, and so impossible to act
Have you seen Kohei Yoshida's words on bug 33330, comments #5 and #6? What does
it mean, "invokes an entirely different calculation engine"??? Well, why do I

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list

Reply via email to