|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | koffice-1.6.3-214.15: 2 * broken case values | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] openSUSE 11.2 | Reporter: | David Binderman <dcb314> |
| Component: | Other | Assignee: | E-mail List <kde-maintainers> |
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | E-mail List <qa-bugs> |
| Severity: | Normal | ||
| Priority: | P5 - None | ||
| Version: | Factory | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | openSUSE 11.1 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | --- | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
I really wonder why you find it worthwhile to waste both your and our time this way. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 442933 ***
>I really wonder why you find it worthwhile to waste both your and our time this
>way.
Thanks very much.
I've reported hundreds of bugs in Open Suse over the years and almost
all bugs I've reported have been fixed by Open Suse developers
or fixed upstream.
Almost all Open Suse developers are happy to fix bugs or report them
upstream.
For reasons I don't know, you appear to refuse my bug reports.
I can think of a few solutions
1. mark all my bug reports as "Don't send to L Lunak".
2. take this issue up with your manager.
If you can't or won't fix my bug reports, at very least
please send them upstream. I don't understand how your solution
helps open source software make progress.
I'm not refusing your bugreports, I'm telling you to report them upstream. If you have the time to compile all those packages and care about mostly harmless warnings, you very likely have the little time to report them to the correct place too. I have hundreds of (mostly real) bugs assigned to me and gets tens of new ones weekly, and I spend considerable portion of my time just sorting out through them, without doing anything actually useful. Turning a developer into your personal assistant who has to repeat everything after you is not helping open source software either. Or, of course, if you don't like my resolution and insist, I can fix your minor issues when I find the time. I expect that to be around 2016 or possibly later. But, if you really want to be helpful, please report minor KDE issues directly upstream. (In reply to comment #3) > I'm not refusing your bugreports, I'm telling you to report them upstream. Good idea in theory, but in practice there are thousands of open suse packages, of which koffice is one, and so I would need to have thousands of accounts to do this for all my bug reports. This isn't going to happen anytime soon. > I have hundreds of (mostly real) bugs assigned to me and gets tens > of new ones weekly, and I spend considerable portion of my time just sorting > out through them, without doing anything actually useful. If you have too much work, I suggest having a chat with your immediate manager to reallocate bugs to those folks who have more time. > Or, of course, if you don't like my resolution and insist, I can fix > your minor issues when I find the time. Fine. I recommend having a look at bugs 443444, 495465 and 477654 for examples of bug report handling I was happy with. > I expect that to be around 2016 or possibly later. But, if you really > want to be helpful, please report minor KDE issues directly upstream. As I indicated above, this isn't going to happen anytime soon. Sorry, but I don't have enough volunteer time to do this. To be clear, you intend to go through multiple releases of the Open Suse product with known, but unfixed, bugs ? |
I just tried to build Factory package koffice-1.6.3-214.15 and the build said textelement.cc:414: warning: case label value exceeds maximum value for type textelement.cc:415: warning: case label value exceeds maximum value for type The source code is case 0x1D574: character = 0x2111; break; case 0x1D579: character = 0x211C; break; I agree with the compiler. This code will never be executed because the return value of the unicode() function is only two bytes in size. While it is certain this code is dead code, perhaps it would benefit from some rework to ensure the original programmer hasn't committed a coding error. I also notice that there is no default case in the switch. This may be viewed as a basic coding error by many students of software engineering.