Hi, Please find my answers inline....
Liebe Grüße, / Yours, Florian Reisinger > Am 02.10.2014 um 15:05 schrieb Tanstaafl <[email protected]>: > > On 10/2/2014 4:34 AM, Charles-H. Schulz > <[email protected]> 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 > inexplicable, > 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 > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79877 > >> 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 (theoretically) > > 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 >> problem, > > 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 case... > > 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: >> http://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/security/advisories/ > > 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: [email protected] > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
