On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 02:02:16PM -0800, Kayo Hamid wrote:
Covering {fldui,fmtui,frmdlg,globdoc,index,lingu,misc}, sending for review.
My patchs are ok? I see so many changes, I want to known if i'm doing
something wrong.
revol_
Pushed.
D.
Hi Luke,
Just, pushed the two patches... Sorry, that it took a while to get
back to you...
By the way, is the SmNodeToTextVisitor as good as it gets now?
Or is it possible to do more improvements ? and if so, should we leave
as an easy hack we or someone can pickup later? (if not lets remove it
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
hey guys what is being done to get LO into debian so that downstream
It already for almost a month.
ubuntu can get it pulled from the upstream debian repository?
Ask them, not me.
Grüße/Regards,
René
--
.''`. René
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:22:06PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
hey guys what is being done to get LO into debian so that downstream
It already for almost a month.
to make that more precise: first upload to Debian on
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:36:50PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Ask them, not me.
If they can't do a simple pull in one month, though they are paid for doing
it and /me
who did already the major work (also at nights!) for it, well..
And I wonder why you ask anyways:
Hi,
Followed cppcheck.
Cheers,
-- Takeshi Abe
From a3800ef12f07f6ac56bca79aa55ad480de8cbc84 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Takeshi Abe t...@fixedpoint.jp
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:28:16 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] cppcheck: reduce the scope of variables
---
dbaccess/source/ui/misc/DExport.cxx
On 11/27/2010 05:36 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:22:06PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
hey guys what is being done to get LO into debian so that downstream
It already for almost a month.
to
On 27/11/10 17:20, Jani Monoses wrote:
On 11/27/2010 05:36 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:22:06PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
hey guys what is being done to get LO into debian so that downstream
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 05:29:44PM +, Andrew wrote:
If you really want to make something happen, ping someone/ask the
question in #ubuntu-desktop on irc.freenode.net (in the week).
I don't.
I was just answering the OP.
Grüße/Regards,
René
--
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux
Jani
if im not mistaken if a bug gets filed they might include it. Isnt
Canonical a sponsor of the project. if that is the case they might
bypass the rule and include it directly with out going to upstream debian
___
LibreOffice mailing list
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 07:20:09PM +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
If they can't do a simple pull in one month, though they are paid for doing
it and /me
who did already the major work (also at nights!) for it, well..
There may be exceptions but I think Ubuntu pulls from sid not from
On 27/11/10 17:52, Rene Engelhard wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 07:20:09PM +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
If they can't do a simple pull in one month, though they are paid for doing
it and /me
who did already the major work (also at nights!) for it, well..
There may be exceptions but I think
Andrew thats the problem with this medium today of emails and chats its
hard to gauge ones emotions. i have to agree that there are some Ubuntu
ops that might have a stick shove a little far up their backsides. Now
I'm stopping there.
___
LibreOffice
Hi *,
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Takeshi Abe t...@fixedpoint.jp wrote:
[cppcheck patches]
I'm curious: Why does cppcheck complain about for i++ and
suggests/demands pre-increment instead (for ... ++i)?
Is there any noticable difference?
ciao
Christian
The OPs mail simply shows Ubuntus attitude and cluelessless, both reasons for
why they have to die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g#t=1m20s
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
Hi Christian,
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:09:36 +0100, Christian Lohmaier
lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm curious: Why does cppcheck complain about for i++ and
suggests/demands pre-increment instead (for ... ++i)?
Is there any noticable difference?
Yes, see:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Christian Lohmaier
lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi *,
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Takeshi Abe t...@fixedpoint.jp wrote:
[cppcheck patches]
I'm curious: Why does cppcheck complain about for i++ and
suggests/demands pre-increment
Hello,
libreoffice.boldandbusted.com is a great idea, but what's the version
cppcheck used for libreoffice.boldandbusted.com ?
I ask this because cppcheck has sometimes false positives. For example,
lately i had opened a tracker (#2235: false Resource leak) and today
it's corrected.
It could
Hello,
I use now rawbuild to compile. I updated repositories 2 hours ago and
i have this (even after a rm -rf unxlngi6.pro/)
I use this to compile :
./autogen.sh --with-num-cpus=1 --without-junit --disable-kde make
Must i do a make clean ?
... languages en-US ...
... analyzing files ...
...
Hi Julien,
It is the git version of cppchcek, which I checkout every few days via
Portage. If you find false positives, you should let the cppcheck folks
know, and they'll remove it or otherwise correct it (or tell you that it
isn't a false positive ;) ).
Which tracker are you referencing?
I've added some code to my report generation scripts to insert the
cppcheck git sha1 hash in the title of the report. I had to do a bit of
shell trickery to get Gentoo's Portage to give me the hash of the
installed cppcheck. It is in the middle of a report run now, so probably
in 4-6 hours from
Hi Petr,
The blocker criteria would be quite useful ;-) Thank you!
For the process to nominate a blocker, is there a specific reason to report a
nomination
twice (1 in mailing list, 2 in bugzilla)?
Also one of the easy hacks.
Patch ensures that after doing replace all the cursor is left at
original position, rather than moved to the position of the last
replacement.
Code contributed under MPL 1.1 / GPLv3+ / LGPLv3+ licenses.
Cheers,
Mattias
From 5f26ecaf56db73b8877808ca716276f1b3245474
Hi Jesse
I was talking about cppcheck bugtracker. There has been a fix for the
tracker #2235, this one has been corrected yesterday.
About false positives, i've created 3 trackers on cppcheck for the
moment. 2 have been fixed : #2235 i talked about and #2210 which has
been corrected by the
24 matches
Mail list logo
