Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Please find my answers inline....

Liebe Grüße, / Yours,
Florian Reisinger

Am 02.10.2014 um 15:05 schrieb Tanstaafl <>:

On 10/2/2014 4:34 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
<> wrote:
The real extortion here is someone who expects people to work for his 
own needs for free.

I am *not* talking about enhancement/feature requests, I am talking
about a major regression that should have never even made it into a
release build (in other words, it should have been caught/fixed in
rudimentary testing),

Dou you think the dev, who implemented this wanted to break this?

Also, as I have said more than once - and even created an enhancement
request for it -

We (QA) do not look at enhancement requests ATM to be honest... We do not have the volunteers....

There is simply no - zero - reason to:

1. have not provided the ability to fall back to the old behavior when
this very new, very different (to the old way) feature was implemented,
*especially* considering that the old behavior is obviously still there
(since you can still invoke it with CTRL-SHIFT-F9), or even more

It is a major change within a branch. Which is dangerous... Can break a lot of things

2. *immediately* re-introduce the old behavior - at the very least as an
*option* - once this bug was detected - until it could be properly
addressed, as I requested (again, once I became aware of the issue) here:

Make a custom build :) Or pay someone to introduce that ASAP

Note that the patch already exists, but that you were not proactive in 
even calling attention on the issue.

That is because, as I said:

1. There was basically no notice that such a major change was pending
(I've been on the libreoffice users list since it was created, and the
openoffice list for years prior to that),

You won't find such things on the user list... I guess it was not even on the QA list... Maybe on 
the dev list... IDK

2. As a one man shop, my time is limited, so my habits with respect to
testing new Libreoffice builds were to wait until the next major version
is at least at a .2 or .3 version,

Far too late to fix in this branch....

3. It is impossible to test every single feature, as evidenced by the
actual devs who implemented this new feature/change who failed to even
TEST the very BASIC paste functionality (as evidenced by the fact that
the bug exists).

As a dev (I can tell you) you focus on other use cases then the actual users sometimes.... If a 
user test the BASIC functionality on alpha 0 this would be soon enough to get the fix 

As soon as I encountered it (when the first user I had updated reported
it to me), I discovered the already opened bug (then subsequently
created the 'enhancement' request referenced above to re-enable, as an
option, the old behavior).

This seems to suggest that the situation your company is on with
respect to your LibreOffice deployment is not really problematic.

It is, but there is simply nothing we can do about it.

If you are not ready to pay anything to have someone fix your

Whose problem? First, this is Libreoffice's problem.

You cannot use the feature. It's your problem. There are no "LibreOffice's problems"

Second, I am not
the decision maker for things like this for our company. I am simply an
IT guy. If you must know, if this were my company, I would be supporting
numerous open source projects financially, but again - it is not my
decision, and so I have to work with what I have, and since I am not
independently wealthy, I am unable to pay for things like this out of my
own pocket.

So leave them with a security vulnerability - Good job IT guy ;) 

But that is all nothing to do with the fact that the responsibility for
fixing REGRESSIONS should fall on the dev(s) that introduced them, and
in fact this responsibility should be a part of any agreement they are
subject to when formally accepted as dev contributors.

You can not force a volunteer

Likewise, the responsibility for properly testing major new features is
- or should be - again, first and foremost on the dev(s) dong the work,
and only secondarily on the users.

They do test... But they cannot test everything. The users should test as well. Their pet use 

If you are seriously suggesting otherwise (and I don't think you are, so
the following shouldn't apply to you), then you are nuts.

and don't even show up to call for an integration of the patch as
soon as possible,

I called for it as soon as I became aware it was there.

But, the point is, it should, again, be first on the dev(s) who
introduce the regression to push the patch(es).

And you do not care it is risky?

Stick with 4.1.6 (that actually works).

It works really well, with an important vulnerability left unpatched. 
That seems to be not important to you either:

It is, but again - we are in the position of being forced to choose
between a rock and a hard place.

I guess everyone has his or her own priorities, but if anything happens 
because of that, you will have been warned.

Yeah, thanks for ... nothing...

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.