Re: Fix for Bug 98940

[Matteo Casalin]

Thanks Michael!

On Fri, 6 May 2016 23:36:58 +0200
Michael Stahl  wrote:

> On 04.05.2016 14:33, Matteo Casalin wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> > thanks for the details.
> > I tried the "gerrit cherry-pick to libreoffice-5-1" method, and it seems 
> > [1] that the same one-line patch is enough. I agree that the fix is 
> > trivial, so I would prefer not testing it since my machine is quite slow - 
> > but if required I can give it a try.
> 
> great, looks like it was reviewed in the mean time :)
> 
> > Just to be sure: 5.1.4 will be branched from 5.1, not from 5.1.3, right?
> 
> yes, there is only one micro release from each libreoffice-x-y-z branch,
> and the next libreoffice-x-y-z+1 is branched from libreoffice-x-y again.
> 
> ___
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Fix for Bug 98940

[Michael Stahl]

On 04.05.2016 14:33, Matteo Casalin wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> thanks for the details.
> I tried the "gerrit cherry-pick to libreoffice-5-1" method, and it seems [1] 
> that the same one-line patch is enough. I agree that the fix is trivial, so I 
> would prefer not testing it since my machine is quite slow - but if required 
> I can give it a try.

great, looks like it was reviewed in the mean time :)

> Just to be sure: 5.1.4 will be branched from 5.1, not from 5.1.3, right?

yes, there is only one micro release from each libreoffice-x-y-z branch,
and the next libreoffice-x-y-z+1 is branched from libreoffice-x-y again.

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Fix for Bug 98940

[Matteo Casalin]

Hi Michael,
thanks for the details.
I tried the "gerrit cherry-pick to libreoffice-5-1" method, and it seems [1] 
that the same one-line patch is enough. I agree that the fix is trivial, so I 
would prefer not testing it since my machine is quite slow - but if required I 
can give it a try.
Just to be sure: 5.1.4 will be branched from 5.1, not from 5.1.3, right?

Thanks again and kind regards
matteo

[1] https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/24654/

On Wed, 4 May 2016 13:58:57 +0200
Michael Stahl  wrote:

> On 01.05.2016 18:37, Matteo Casalin wrote:
> > On 05/01/2016 12:23 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Matteo Casalin
> >>  wrote:
> 
> >>> The aforementioned bug, however, affects the 5.1 branch and should be 
> >>> evaluated for backporting: what is the best approach to be followed for 
> >>> this?
> >>
> >> Cherry pick to gerrit and amend with any fixup necessary, so it ends
> >> up in 5.1 as one single commit.
> > 
> > I'm not familiar with this flow, is this equivalent to:
> > * Switch my local copy to 5.1 branch
> > * Implement the same fix, plus any other modification needed to compile
> 
> you can just use "git cherry-pick -x " to apply the
> patch to the release branch (and resolve merge conflicts if there are any).
> 
> > * Submit to gerrit, specifying 5.1 branch
> 
> that works - an alternative that may be easier is to go to your master
> change in gerrit web ui and click the "cherry-pick" button and specify
> "libreoffice-5-1" branch - that will only work if there are no merge
> conflicts, and if you want to test it locally it's not actually easier,
> but this fix looks rather trivial.
> 
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Fix for Bug 98940

[Michael Stahl]

On 01.05.2016 18:37, Matteo Casalin wrote:
> On 05/01/2016 12:23 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Matteo Casalin
>>  wrote:

>>> The aforementioned bug, however, affects the 5.1 branch and should be 
>>> evaluated for backporting: what is the best approach to be followed for 
>>> this?
>>
>> Cherry pick to gerrit and amend with any fixup necessary, so it ends
>> up in 5.1 as one single commit.
> 
> I'm not familiar with this flow, is this equivalent to:
> * Switch my local copy to 5.1 branch
> * Implement the same fix, plus any other modification needed to compile

you can just use "git cherry-pick -x " to apply the
patch to the release branch (and resolve merge conflicts if there are any).

> * Submit to gerrit, specifying 5.1 branch

that works - an alternative that may be easier is to go to your master
change in gerrit web ui and click the "cherry-pick" button and specify
"libreoffice-5-1" branch - that will only work if there are no merge
conflicts, and if you want to test it locally it's not actually easier,
but this fix looks rather trivial.

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Fix for Bug 98940

[Matteo Casalin]

On 04/29/2016 06:52 PM, Matteo Casalin wrote:

Hi everybody,
 I submitted to gerrit a one-line fix for bug 98940, a regression 
introduced by a previous commit of mine.
I think it's quite safe to push it to master, and I will do that in a few days 
unless someone reviews/pushes it in the meantime.

The aforementioned bug, however, affects the 5.1 branch and should be evaluated 
for backporting: what is the best approach to be followed for this?

Thanks in advance and kind regards
Matteo



As an addition, the bug reporter originally asked for two fixes:

1. allow again -1 as a valid value, that should be fixed by my patch at:
   https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/24268/

2. allow a maximum "maximum length" positive value higher than 32767. I
   see two issues with this:
   * that value is set by VCLXMultilineEdit::setProperty, that uses a
 sal_Int16:


http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/svtools/source/uno/unoiface.cxx#443

 and I have no idea if this can be changed or if it is stable api
   * The control widget can takes values higher than the aforementioned
 32767, and this besides being misleading can also be a source of
 undesired behavior (is the chosen value truncated, saturated or
 what?).

Any comment is much appreciated.

Kind regards
Matteo
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Fix for Bug 98940

[Matteo Casalin]

Hi Christian

On 05/01/2016 12:23 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:

Hi Matteo,

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Matteo Casalin
<matteo.casa...@yahoo.com> wrote:

using yahoo address with mailing lists is unfortunate, as yahoo uses
DMARC policy that make receiving mail providers flag the mail as spam
or reject them

"Why is this message in Spam? It has a from address in yahoo.com but
has failed yahoo.com's required tests for authentication."


Thanks for reporting - I will ask for a libreoffice.org one, hoping that 
it will work fine.
It would be great to have a list of account providers that are known to 
work fine with LO online services, besides reducing the number of 
required accounts themselves: I already had to switch both openid and 
e-mail provider for a similar reason, finally choosing yahoo as a 
all-in-one solution. I honestly would prefer not to have to change again 
due to a new poor choice.



Hi everybody,
 I submitted to gerrit a one-line fix for bug 98940, a regression 
introduced by a previous commit of mine.


then it would help greatly to also include the appropriate link to gerrit


Sorry, that was my idea but clearly missed it. Here it is:

https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/24268




The aforementioned bug, however, affects the 5.1 branch and should be evaluated 
for backporting: what is the best approach to be followed for this?


Cherry pick to gerrit and amend with any fixup necessary, so it ends
up in 5.1 as one single commit.


I'm not familiar with this flow, is this equivalent to:
* Switch my local copy to 5.1 branch
* Implement the same fix, plus any other modification needed to compile
* Submit to gerrit, specifying 5.1 branch

Thanks and kind regards
Matteo



ciao
Christian
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice



___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Fix for Bug 98940

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Matteo,

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Matteo Casalin
<matteo.casa...@yahoo.com> wrote:

using yahoo address with mailing lists is unfortunate, as yahoo uses
DMARC policy that make receiving mail providers flag the mail as spam
or reject them

"Why is this message in Spam? It has a from address in yahoo.com but
has failed yahoo.com's required tests for authentication."

> Hi everybody,
> I submitted to gerrit a one-line fix for bug 98940, a regression 
> introduced by a previous commit of mine.

then it would help greatly to also include the appropriate link to gerrit

> The aforementioned bug, however, affects the 5.1 branch and should be 
> evaluated for backporting: what is the best approach to be followed for this?

Cherry pick to gerrit and amend with any fixup necessary, so it ends
up in 5.1 as one single commit.

ciao
Christian
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Fix for Bug 98940

[Matteo Casalin]

Hi everybody,
I submitted to gerrit a one-line fix for bug 98940, a regression introduced 
by a previous commit of mine.
I think it's quite safe to push it to master, and I will do that in a few days 
unless someone reviews/pushes it in the meantime.

The aforementioned bug, however, affects the 5.1 branch and should be evaluated 
for backporting: what is the best approach to be followed for this?

Thanks in advance and kind regards
Matteo
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice