On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 06:53:45PM +0200, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > given that the entirety of the patch is:
(... one line) > Just reproduce it and mention i119400 in the commit message. > Note: in this specific case removing the unnecessary '()' [ indeed A > && (B && C) <=> A && B && C ] > would be enough to make a distinct enough implementation, should > someone insist on the un-realistic concept that such patch rise to the > creativity threshold. IMHO, does not rise to creativity threshold. But if you consider it does, you can't just make *another* change on top of it and consider you didn't take their patch. What you'd have to do is a clean-room implementation: take a LibO developer / contributor that has not seen this patch yet, tell him "in function BLAH, on line N, the if-test-condition is wrong. It should act if bTryMerge is true and pMergeWithAction is non-NULL and pMergeAction->Merge( pAction ) is true / non-NULL. But currently it act if bTryMerge is true (OK, so far so good) AND (pMergeWithAction is NULL OR pMergeAction->Merge( pAction ) is false / NULL ) which is equivalent to bTryMerge is true AND (pMergeWithAction is non-NULL AND pMergeAction->Merge( pAction ) is true / non-NULL ) So could you please change this if test as explained above? Thanks. -- Lionel _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
