incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Nominate release blocker: 118999 - Leap year not correctly calculated
Date Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:26:58 GMT
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> --- Sab 3/3/12, Andrea Pescetti ha scritto:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118999
>>> The fix should definitely be integrated in 3.4.

We already have more messages in this discussion than characters in the 
patch, anyway... By "nominating as blocker" I simply meant that the fix 
should be checked in before 3.4; seeing that Pedro had the fix ready but 
had not committed it, I merely wanted to ask to include it. (By the way, 
regressions should qualify as blockers, but I accept Marcus' view that 
this is not a huge bug, while annoying).

>> Looking at this issue:
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=25987
>> I got to the conclusion that this is a long standing
>> bug that has been mutating for some time.

No, that bug is closed invalid and has nothing to do with leap years. 
This is a new bug, introduced by CWS sw33bf02, and you can read the 
description from the developer's words in
http://www.mail-archive.com/libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org/msg24634.html
and in the same thread you can see the LibreOffice fix that is 
equivalent to the one by Pedro:
http://www.mail-archive.com/libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org/msg24587.html
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?h=libreoffice-3-5&id=a2d96b51f3272ecbdc0f4f9d4b2ee65409892554

> Are we sue that fixing this bug doesn't bring in another bug?  I'd
> worry that there is other code compensating for this bug

Given the discussion above, I'd be confident that the fix can be 
committed. This is not a decade-old bug hidden in an obscure part of the 
source code, a situation where I would have the same perplexity you express.

> I'd be far more confident if we had a test document that did a
> comprehensive test of date calculations, including leap year
> calculations.

You can find reasonable suggestions (unit tests) in the discussion 
above, but indeed test documents would be nice to start with.

Regards,
   Andrea.

Mime
View raw message