Hi there,
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 11:38 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
The attached patches revert the recent two commits which consist of the
merging of OOo330-m19 changes.
Thanks for that !
It fixed i#115906 and i#116164, but the fix for i#116164 unfortunately
was pretty large and invasive, plus it introduced a regression as
reported in i#116439 of OOo bug tracker.
Sure; i#116164 is a pretty severe, but unnusual corner case performance
regression - so we don't need a fix for it.
It is my opinion that, since these fixes don't fit *our* blocker
criteria, plus the change is too large to be in RC, reverting them will
be our best option.
Agreed.
The 0001 is a pure git revert commit, whereas the 0002 is an application
of a patch I generated between the pre- and post-merge commit. Git has
a special handling of reverting merge commits, so I decided to do the
revert this way.
Well; grokking git and reading your patch I must say; I get fairly
confused by what patch (the merge patch, or the cws patch) is actually
applied, and how best to revert this.
As an example; reading the original NN patch I see:
-void ScTable::DBShowRows(SCROW nRow1, SCROW nRow2, bool bShow)
+void ScTable::DBShowRows(SCROW nRow1, SCROW nRow2, bool bShow, bool bSetFlags)
{
+ // #i116164# IncRecalcLevel/DecRecalcLevel is in ScTable::Query
SCROW nStartRow = nRow1;
- IncRecalcLevel();
InitializeNoteCaptions();
while (nStartRow <= nRow2)
{
in libreoffice-3-3 as of today it reads:
void ScTable::DBShowRows(SCROW nRow1, SCROW nRow2, bool bShow, bool bSetFlags)
{
// #i116164# IncRecalcLevel/DecRecalcLevel is in ScTable::Query
SCROW nStartRow = nRow1;
while (nStartRow <= nRow2)
And yet your reversion patch -appears- not to re-instate the
IncRecalcLevel() call:
-void ScTable::DBShowRows(SCROW nRow1, SCROW nRow2, bool bShow, bool bSetFlags)
+void ScTable::DBShowRows(SCROW nRow1, SCROW nRow2, bool bShow)
{
- // #i116164# IncRecalcLevel/DecRecalcLevel is in ScTable::Query
SCROW nStartRow = nRow1;
while (nStartRow <= nRow2)
{
Which is scary to me :-) I'd like to discuss where the madness lies
(most likely in my method) before we push this to libreoffice-3-3-0 can
you poke me on IRC ?
Thanks,
Michael.;
--
michael.meeks@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.