incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [CODE] issue 118576: Crash on close
Date Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:45:43 GMT
I concur on reverting the patch.

It would be appropriate for a committer who has not seen the patch to use the bugzilla report
to independently derive a fix from the information that isolates the defect, assuming that
such details are available.  I have the feeling that is not the case, and the defect identification
and its removal is inherent in the patch that Caolan created.

It seems very appropriate to obtain Caolan's permission to derive an ALv2 AOOo patch from
his patch.  , The patch that is made should acknowledge Caolan in an appropriate manner, including
acknowledgment of all the effort that went into the investigation behind <>.

 -- Dennis

PS: This should also serve as a reminder that third-party bug reports and their fixes are
third-party works and need to be handled in a very respectful manner and with explicit permission
and acknowledgment.  Even when there is no concern over IP, the etiquette matters.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Giffuni [] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 04:17
Subject: Re: [CODE] issue 118576: Crash on close

I think I will just revert the "singleton" patch for
now and we can ask permission to use this from Caolan.

I will leave the bugzilla issues open: its nice to
know about the underlying bugs.


--- On Tue, 11/8/11, eric b <> wrote:

> From: eric b <>
> Subject: Re: [CODE] issue 118576: Crash on close
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2011, 7:02 AM
> Hi Andre,
> Le 8 nov. 11 à 11:21, Andre Fischer a écrit :
> > 
> > 
> > On 07.11.2011 12:25, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >> I agree with everyone :).
> >> 
> >> Right now it doesnt make sense to spend time on
> this, however if Erics patch avoids the crash for now it
> >> would be an acceptable solution.
> >> 
> >> I would like a bugzilla issue that we can keep
> open so that we dont forget about the underlying issues,
> >> maybe 118576 serves that purpose already.
> > 
> > I agree.
> > 
> > What is the status of Erics patch?
> Pending. See below.
> >   Does it work
> I'd say yes. No more crash nor alien message on my Windows
> (XP), and on Mac OS X, but I need other feedback, on other
> OSs too.
> Waiting for confirmation.
> > and can it be applied under the Apache license?
> > 
> Honestly : I don't know (and I'm serious): in the case it
> will be commited, the point is to keep Caolan as original
> other of the good idea (use boost shared_ptrs), and to
> recognize his merit (debug such code is difficult and
> boring).
> More precisely : I created the patch manually, because
> Caolan one did not apply. The first reason why, was that LO
> code and seem to be divergent : in LO there
> is a new added class  and methods (Factory) + other
> deep changes who have been made in cppuhelper, and we do not
> have that in OOo (if I didn't miss anything). Second, some
> cosmetic changes caused some hunks to fail.
> I know my patch is very close to Caolan patch, and I don't
> know what we can do with that : in the case we can commit
> it, we will anyway mention Caolan as the orignal autohr of
> the fix, e.g. providing the fdo issue entry (where the
> initial patch stands) ?
> Last but not least, I think my patch does fix the crash,
> but as you wrote (and I completely agree), the WHAT is
> fixed, but not the WHY. That's why I'd prefer use on a more
> accurate/precise solution (like the one you proposed).
> Oh, I forgot : another big issue around, is that we can no
> longer extract all the changes made when the new
> configmanager was added (would help to see what is exactly
> concerned in the code). Or maybe is there an existing full
> diff somewhere ? (was sb111 or something like that)
> Regards,
> Eric
> --qɔᴉɹə
> Projet OOo4Kids :
> L'association EducOOo :
> Blog :

View raw message