On 03/03/12 16:26, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Rob Weir wrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Sab 3/3/12, Andrea Pescetti ha scritto:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118999
The fix should definitely be integrated in 3.4.
We already have more messages in this discussion than characters in
the patch, anyway... By "nominating as blocker" I simply meant that
the fix should be checked in before 3.4; seeing that Pedro had the fix
ready but had not committed it, I merely wanted to ask to include it.
(By the way, regressions should qualify as blockers, but I accept
Marcus' view that this is not a huge bug, while annoying).
Looking at this issue:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=25987
I got to the conclusion that this is a long standing
bug that has been mutating for some time.
No, that bug is closed invalid and has nothing to do with leap years.
This is a new bug, introduced by CWS sw33bf02,
FWIW, I don't think the original issue was actually invalid: the lack
of support for leap years was likely to be the cause behind the
code in that CWS. It's all pretty irrelevant history at this
time though: the code is broken and there is a fix for testing.
I agree this thread is already too long for something so simple.
cheers,
Pedro.
and you can read the description from the developer's words in
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg24634.html
and in the same thread you can see the LibreOffice fix that is
equivalent to the one by Pedro:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg24587.html
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?h=libreoffice-3-5&id=a2d96b51f3272ecbdc0f4f9d4b2ee65409892554
Are we sue that fixing this bug doesn't bring in another bug? I'd
worry that there is other code compensating for this bug
Given the discussion above, I'd be confident that the fix can be
committed. This is not a decade-old bug hidden in an obscure part of
the source code, a situation where I would have the same perplexity
you express.
I'd be far more confident if we had a test document that did a
comprehensive test of date calculations, including leap year
calculations.
You can find reasonable suggestions (unit tests) in the discussion
above, but indeed test documents would be nice to start with.
Regards,
Andrea.
