[Open Office] Re: Issues i#59089 and i#57862

[Giuseppe Castagno]

Hi Michael,

On 1/13/06, michael meeks <michael.meeks at novell.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 10:04 +0100, Giuseppe Castagno wrote:
> > please find attached two patches that should fix the issues #59089
> > and #57862.
>
>         So - these are nice :-) this is good stuff.
>
> > They where formed against the oo.o official CVS.
> > I built an ooo-build tag m148 from scratch without problem.
>
>         Sure - we can include them easily; but a few comments 1st perhaps (?).
>
> > BTW it took me 3/4 of an hour to file the two of them of issue
> > tracker, is this all right ?
>
>         Sorry about that, SourceCast sucks (it seems).
>
> > Comments are accepted, welcome, etc...
>
>         So - wrt. i#59089 I'm happy to commit it now - with a little cleanup:
>
>         + no need for all the bepecc comments - the function is
>           clear & the patch is easy to read, I've removed them,
>           your name lives on in the ChangeLog.

oops, I use them as kind of boomark, I wont use them in the future.

>
>         + we should use a bit-field for the flag, see the other
>           flags are of the form:
>                 unsigned int foo : 1;
>
>           the ':1' in a structure means it will only consume a single
>           bit, vs 4 bytes on Intel :-)

next time I'll them that way. Actually in real-time stuff I wrote
lately I used them a lot.

>
>         The other patch looks fine modulo comments - I've committed both as
> ui-macro-warnings[2].diff.
>
>         Have you signed the JCA ? this is really a pre-requisite for getting
> code up-stream & as such for ooo-build too; checkout the wiki & let me
> know.

Dowloaded, not  difficult legal stuff to understand,  I'll send it
asap, let you know when done.

Regards,
Giuseppe.

>
>         Thanks & welcome to OO.o hacking,
>
>         Regards,
>
>                 Michael.
>
>
> --
>  michael.meeks at novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>
>