poi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoli...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Status: Towards 2.0
Date Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:51:27 GMT
You rock dude.  

Minor correction: must fix should be "must resolve" and the resolution could
be "reporter full of it" or "not really a bug"...  :-)

-Andy

On 10/7/03 11:41 AM, "Avik Sengupta" <avik.sengupta@itellix.com> wrote:

> The following is the status of all bugs mentioned in Andy's original post
> about &quot;must fix&quot; bugs for 2.0 final release. For more context,
> please see the original mail below. As you can see, we are making good
> progress (even if i say so myself :) with over half the list already done.
> 
> The biggest issue remaining is the international strings problem (12843). Some
> are simple that i'll do over the next week or so. After that, i'll address
> individual issues on the list, and we can decide if we want each of them to
> block the 2.0 release.
> 
> Enjoy. 
> 
> 13424    NOT DONE
> 13921    NOT DONE
> 14734    Fixed in HEAD. Will it go to branch? Rainer?
> 14824    Glen says fixed (will u close the bug?)
> 15375    Probably done, waiting for confirmation
> 16488    NOT DONE
> 16559    NOT DONE
> 16560    NOT DONE
> 16756    Shawn says its Fixed (will u close the bug?)
> 16985    NOT DONE (Avik)
> 17196    NOT DONE – we need better testcases, i dont think this is a “general”
> issue
> 17329    Danny says its Fixed (will u close the bug?)
> 17374    NOT DONE – trivial
> 17494    NOT DONE
> 18800    NOT DONE – needs confirmation
> 19321    NOT DONE
> 19599    NOT DONE
> 19961    Fixed
> 20048    WontFix
> 20550    Reportedly fixed. To check with testcase
> 21066    Fixed (Glen is this in branch as well?)
> 21646    DUP 15375
> 14493    Unlikely – needs more confirmation/testcase b4 it can be fixed
> 9576    Fixed in HEAD by Jason. Open issue on BRANCH
> 12843    NOT DONE (may solve 12561,15556,22742 .. we desperately need more
> “double byte” testers who can test the patch and report back!)
> 13229    NOT DONE (forrest issue – Glen?)
> 13478    Done
> 15008    NOT DONE (Andy/Tetsuya?)
> 16985    NOT DONE (not a patch) Avik
> 18837    NOT DONE
> 18846    Marked fixed, but dont know if applied (Tetsuya?)
> 21444    Done
> 21673    Closed via 21444
> 21674    Done
> 21722    Done
> 41330    Fixed
> 13796    Fixed
> 14460    Fixed
> 15228    Done
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> On 7/24/03 1:22 PM, &quot;Andrew C. Oliver&quot; &lt;acoliver@apache.org&gt;
> wrote:
> 
> &gt; Before we release 2.0, the following are &quot;must fix&quot; bugs IMHO.
> Some need to
> &gt; be researched and invalidated (if they aren't valid) or noted as
> &quot;can't fix
> &gt; till 3.0&quot; (if they aren't tooooo serious and aren't blockers):
> &gt; 
> &gt; 1. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6802
> &gt; 2. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11744
> &gt; 3. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12561 (Tetsuya?)
> &gt; 4. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12730
> &gt; 5. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13224 (Avik &amp;
> me)
> &gt; 6. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13249 (Avik?)
> &gt; 7. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13424 (ALL)
> &gt; 8. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13921
> &gt; 9. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14734 (Rainer)
> &gt; 10. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14824
> &gt; 11. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15375 (Glen?)
> &gt; 12. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16488 (investigate)
> &gt; 13. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16559 (Danny)
> &gt; 14. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16560 (Danny)
> &gt; 15. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16756
> &gt; 16. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16985
> &gt; 17. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17196 (Avik &amp;
> Andy)
> &gt; 18. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17329 (fixed?)
> &gt; 19. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17374 (Andy)
> &gt; 20. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17494
> &gt; 21. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18800
> &gt; 22. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19321
> &gt; 23. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19599 (Tetsuya?)
> &gt; 24. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19961
> &gt; 25. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20048
> &gt; 26. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20550
> &gt; 27. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21066
> &gt; 28. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21646
> &gt; 
> &gt; Unlikely (Stranger than fiction) :
> &gt; 
> &gt; 1. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493
> &gt; 
> &gt; 
> &gt; PATCHES
> &gt; 
> &gt; 1. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9576
> &gt; 2. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12843
> &gt; 3. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13229 (Glen, is this
> &gt; relevant any more?)
> &gt; 4. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13478 (Chris
> convinced
> &gt; me)
> &gt; 5. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15008 (Tetsuya)
> &gt; 6. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16985 (Tetsuya)
> &gt; 7. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18837
> &gt; 8. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18846 (Tetsuya)
> &gt; 9. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21444 (AndY)
> &gt; 10. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21673
> &gt; 11. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21674
> &gt; 12. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21722 (Andy)
> &gt; 
> &gt; 
> &gt; Formula related, should look into (may not fix for 2.0-final)
> &gt; * we probably shouldn't completely CHOKE on these when they can't be read
> &gt; for final *
> &gt; 1. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14330
> &gt; 2. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
> &gt; 3. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14460
> &gt; 
> &gt; 
> &gt; Stuff Avik and I haven't committed yet:
> &gt; 
> &gt; 1. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15228
> &gt; 
> &gt; 
> &gt; Lets try and work through these so we can get 2.0 out of the door!
> 


-- 
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI

http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
everything espoused in the above email.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message