https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136441
--- Comment #7 from Telesto <tele...@surfxs.nl> ---
(In reply to Aron Budea from comment #3)
@Offoptic
> It's a bit unusual that I see 7.1.0.0.alpha0+ and 4.4.7.2 mentioned in the
> comments, and at the same time the version is set to 6.0.0.3, which isn't
> mentioned anywhere else.
Accident. Tested 6.0.3. Switched the drop down.. moved on the 4.4.7.2.. bit
didn't change it again.
> It'd also be great to see the bugs added to the META bugs they belong to from
> the start.
That's a policy matter which should be discussed. I personally don't like
unconfirmed bugs in the meta bug list. As I list those meta bugs to look
through them searching for existing bugs once in a while (and in those list
there is no way of telling what's a confirmed bug or unconfirmed/needinfo bug).
They only excepting currently being Skia meta. As the developer himself
(un)confirms bug which isn't the usual approach. And it speed up the process
Secondly adding bugs to meta bugs is a really time consuming business. I really
have to look up the meta bug list nearly every time. Or i'm doing something
pretty inefficient.
--
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
