incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Nominate release blocker: 118999 - Leap year not correctly calculated
Date Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:53:15 GMT
On 03/03/12 16:26, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> 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, 

FWIW, I don't think the original issue was actually invalid: the lack
of support for leap years was likely to be the cause behind the
code in that CWS. It's all pretty irrelevant history at this
time though: the code is broken and there is a fix for testing.

I agree this thread is already too long for something so simple.

cheers,

Pedro.

> 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