Amen on understanding the scope of the bug!! As promised, I built a smoke-test document and ran it. The bug does not appear at all in any Windows version of OpenOffice.org that I tested. In particular, it does not appear in OpenOffice.org 3.3.0, in the Oracle OOo-dev 3.4.0 developer release, nor in the Apache OpenOffice OOo-dev 3.4 Developer Snapshot r1293550.
For more grounding, I confirmed that the bug also is missing from LibreOffice 3.3.2, the one I use for production, but it does appear in LibreOffice 3.5.0. So, whatever the origin of the defect, it apparently does not exist in the Apache OpenOffice lineage from OpenOffice.org. On the other hand, it would be good to keep the smoketest document around, just in case. The file and screen captures demonstrating the presence and absence of smoke are all attacked to the AOO Bugzilla report #118999. -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 14:12 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Nominate release blocker: 118999 - Leap year not correctly calculated On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > The reported bug is about a date conversion error on loading of a stored ODP > file. It appears from the description that the conversion fails and a > serial-date number of 0 results. > > If it can be confirmed that the error is localized to that case, the fix has > to be benign. This would be unrelated to whether or not there are other > defects involving serial-date numbers that correspond to the leap days on any > calendar. > I was hoping that OO did not have several independent places where leap year logic was coded, some with bugs, some without. But if it the case that this bug is only in the data input and conversion logic and not in the calculation logic, then great. But I think that would need to come from analysis of the code dependencies, not analysis of the defect report. Hopefully we agree that understanding the scope of the bug is a real good thing here, -Rob
