Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Hi Folks,

as Markus stated in dc05a825e71316e6f602e5c8dfcd3d10ecb6252f those string cleanups aren't save. I've had the illusion, that by compiling and "quick checking" all of it got tested (mostly by compiling). Because there were complains, if I removed too much. I didn't touch things like STR_FOO_BEGIN 100 and STR_FOO_END 200 if there were definitions inside it and STR_FOO_BEGIN or STR_FOO_END were seen in the source. If this was the case, resources between 100 and 200 were used by a loop or something similar.

But that there are strings in use, which are never referenced in the source or at compile time (so that the compiler would complain) is some kind of strange. Or do I just not understand this?!

So I revert all of those string changes now. Because I can't ensure that there are more of those errors. Moreover I did remove a massive removal of resource ids. So may it be possible that there are false positives too. That sucks :(

Is there any way to get a real checkup what string and definitions are in use at all?! If not it would be safer to revert all of this cleanup. Even if that's very sad...

I don't wanted to mess all of this up.

Thomas

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.