Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
On 6/9/22 11:46 AM, Carl Marcum wrote: Hi All, I have a PR-150 [1] that fixes a few issues with the Basic lang in AOO41X. These were fixes by Damjan back in 2015 in trunk and AOO42X. What I'm not sure is if leaving them out of 4.1.x was intentional or not due to not wanting to change API's or whatever. To me these seem more like bug fixes and not API changes so I think we should bring them in. The third issue was pointed out on the QA list recently by Lucien Mathay **so I included it as well. [2]. The example provided was the inspiration for the unit test I included for it. One fix is a bug in the CLng (convert to Long) function and the other two fix issues with single line if statements. For discussion: Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x? [1] https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/150 [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/hx09t5f4c4jt3x3fxn5sfkj2g0q9d56w Best regards, Carl Based on the positive responses thus far I'm going to pull them in. Best regards, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Hi Damjan, On 6/9/22 1:20 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:46 PM Carl Marcum wrote: For discussion: Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x? The only reason I didn't include them myself, is that back then I expected 4.2.0 to be out soon, and didn't want to waste time backporting to 4.1.x which was about to be EOL. Thanks for the explanation! I just wanted to make sure there wasn't another reason. Best regards, Carl Regards Damjan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Marcus wrote: Am 09.06.22 um 19:20 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic: On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:46 PM Carl Marcum wrote: For discussion: Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x? +1 from me. The only reason I didn't include them myself, is that back then I expected 4.2.0 to be out soon, and didn't want to waste time backporting to 4.1.x which was about to be EOL. Just to prevent any misunderstanding: 4.1.x is EOL when a 4.2.0 release is finally published. And even then we can decide to have both branches in parallel for some time. But as we have no date for 4.2.0, 4.1.x is and will be the most current release branch. Marcus Based on Damjan's explanation of why he didn't backport them a +1 from me as well. Regards Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Am 09.06.22 um 19:20 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic: On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:46 PM Carl Marcum wrote: For discussion: Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x? +1 from me. The only reason I didn't include them myself, is that back then I expected 4.2.0 to be out soon, and didn't want to waste time backporting to 4.1.x which was about to be EOL. Just to prevent any misunderstanding: 4.1.x is EOL when a 4.2.0 release is finally published. And even then we can decide to have both branches in parallel for some time. But as we have no date for 4.2.0, 4.1.x is and will be the most current release branch. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:46 PM Carl Marcum wrote: > For discussion: > Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x? > The only reason I didn't include them myself, is that back then I expected 4.2.0 to be out soon, and didn't want to waste time backporting to 4.1.x which was about to be EOL. Regards Damjan
Re: [DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Hi Carl, all, Am 09.06.22 um 17:46 schrieb Carl Marcum: > Hi All, > > I have a PR-150 [1] that fixes a few issues with the Basic lang in > AOO41X. > These were fixes by Damjan back in 2015 in trunk and AOO42X. > > What I'm not sure is if leaving them out of 4.1.x was intentional or > not due to not wanting to change API's or whatever. > To me these seem more like bug fixes and not API changes so I think we > should bring them in. > > The third issue was pointed out on the QA list recently by Lucien > Mathay **so I included it as well. [2]. > The example provided was the inspiration for the unit test I included > for it. > > One fix is a bug in the CLng (convert to Long) function and the other > two fix issues with single line if statements. > > For discussion: > Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x? Personally, I also think these are bugfixes. So +1 for merging into AOO41X. Regards, Matthias > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/150 > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/hx09t5f4c4jt3x3fxn5sfkj2g0q9d56w > > Best regards, > Carl > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
[DISCUSS] Fixes for Basic lang in 4.1 line
Hi All, I have a PR-150 [1] that fixes a few issues with the Basic lang in AOO41X. These were fixes by Damjan back in 2015 in trunk and AOO42X. What I'm not sure is if leaving them out of 4.1.x was intentional or not due to not wanting to change API's or whatever. To me these seem more like bug fixes and not API changes so I think we should bring them in. The third issue was pointed out on the QA list recently by Lucien Mathay **so I included it as well. [2]. The example provided was the inspiration for the unit test I included for it. One fix is a bug in the CLng (convert to Long) function and the other two fix issues with single line if statements. For discussion: Should we included these fixes in 4.1.x? [1] https://github.com/apache/openoffice/pull/150 [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/hx09t5f4c4jt3x3fxn5sfkj2g0q9d56w Best regards, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
