On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 07:49:47AM +0200, Yosef Hamza wrote: > Those 2 patches are actually one, But I think that the second patch needs > some discussion.
As Robert already mentioned, the second patch (0003) is simply wrong. That code was there for a reason :-) > I think it's better this way because through trying and fixing the error > there wasn't a way -that I'm aware of at least- to cancel the added event > @0:00. There are different reasons why there would be an event at time 0:00 Some dive computers include a gas change event in the first sample (which often is a few seconds into the dive and not at 0:00) to indicate the first gas used. Those are valid and important events for the logic of how we treat a dive, but they shouldn't be displayed as they make no sense to the casual user. The question to ask the bug submitter is "why do you want to add a gas change at 0'/0:00? -- is this to correct the first gas used?" The other patch (0002) I don't understand. At least in the function where you added this code there is no unsigned comparison. Can you explain this a bit more? /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
