openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <>
Subject Re: Nominate release blocker: 118999 - Leap year not correctly calculated
Date Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:24:50 GMT
On 03/03/12 17:34, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Amen on understanding the scope of the bug!!
> As promised, I built a smoke-test document and ran it.  The bug does not appear at all
in any Windows version of that I tested.  In particular, it does not appear
in 3.3.0, in the Oracle OOo-dev 3.4.0 developer release, nor in the Apache
OpenOffice OOo-dev 3.4 Developer Snapshot r1293550.
> For more grounding, I confirmed that the bug also is missing from LibreOffice 3.3.2,
the one I use for production, but it does appear in LibreOffice 3.5.0.
> So, whatever the origin of the defect, it apparently does not exist in the Apache OpenOffice
lineage from
> On the other hand, it would be good to keep the smoketest document around, just in case.
> The file and screen captures demonstrating the presence and absence of smoke are all
attacked to the AOO Bugzilla report #118999.

The code is only used for conversions and apparently recent
versions of LO use it more aggressively but I can't find huge
differences with what we do (not that I looked too hard).

In any case I did a conversion of Dennis' file to Excel XML and
while the result is ugly (the "Serial days" information is lost and
1899 is formatted "99"), the dates are still consistent.

I am doing more tests converting stuff but for now I changed
the status to "irreproducible". As originally planned I wont
commit my patch for 3.4 but it still looks like a latent bug
waiting to strike so I will test Dennis' file with my patch for
inclusion after the release.

Thank you, Dennis!



View raw message