Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5BE4A9727 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 16:10:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 18474 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2012 16:10:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 18424 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2012 16:10:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 18416 invoked by uid 99); 1 Mar 2012 16:10:09 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:10:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jogischmidt@googlemail.com designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.47] (HELO mail-bk0-f47.google.com) (209.85.214.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:10:01 +0000 Received: by bkcjg15 with SMTP id jg15so674723bkc.6 for ; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:09:41 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jogischmidt@googlemail.com designates 10.205.129.141 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.205.129.141; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jogischmidt@googlemail.com designates 10.205.129.141 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jogischmidt@googlemail.com; dkim=pass header.i=jogischmidt@googlemail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.205.129.141]) by 10.205.129.141 with SMTP id hi13mr512304bkc.7.1330618181535 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:09:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VWQfYNj0MmJ4lVKbefaUgO1XJ+lzQHSOymyLRH4UHhE=; b=tWS54YEQZV+JQLSUZGsxBOaFFFu1bLvRmuRMOUMo7tv1Es1bqv7L+EoijlEBVm12JJ 75kcwg+r62pburPcfDQwMxqPLwCwc0q8vzSE0Nq5iN5sK6ClYI8nliYmbB4GLxEzGyrT h9mwYK06BW3rY870eAtRV6poI2rZPRRbt39GY= Received: by 10.205.129.141 with SMTP id hi13mr416244bkc.7.1330618181386; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:09:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [9.155.131.20] (deibp9eh1--blueice2n2.emea.ibm.com. [195.212.29.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o7sm4425323bkw.16.2012.03.01.08.09.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:09:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F4F9F44.7060201@googlemail.com> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:09:40 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Schmidt?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118435 - Openoffice removes footnotes when opening MS-Word(.doc)-File. References: <1330618055.81739.YahooMailClassic@web113512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1330618055.81739.YahooMailClassic@web113512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 3/1/12 5:07 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > --- Gio 1/3/12, Rob Weir ha scritto: > >> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to start the discussions on requested >> release blocker issues >>> for our AOO 3.4 release. >>> >>> I am starting with issue 118435 - >>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118435 >>> >>> From my point of view this is not a blocker for AOO >> 3.4, because this issue >>> already occurs in former versions of OpenOffice.org, at >> least in OOo 3.3. >>> >> >> I agree. Of course, if someone had a patch to fix this >> I would not refuse it. But this is not a release blocker. >> >> -Rob >> > > Indeed, I think the criteria to define a release blocker > of at this point is not if the bug existed already but if > we can fix it within a reasonable timeframe. > > In this case the issue is serious but I doubt we will be > able to fix in time (patch welcome). +1 and the 3.4_release_blocker flag is changed to "-" now Juergen > > Pedro. >