I just looked at the difference between the proposed patch and the
commit from Urmas. The changes from Urmas are attached to this mail.
I hate stepping in like this, but I will manage this from now on. The
course of action *will* be this:
1. If Ingo approves the changes, we'll let everything be as it is.
2. If Ingo does not approve of the changes, I will revert revision
30045.
3. If Urmas would be so kind to explain his modifications, and/or
provide a test document, then we will discus that further on this list.
4. If no explanation of the errors found in Ingo's work are presented,
or no test document is provided, I will commit Ingo's work as is. With
"bugs" and all.
Next time, we *will* discuss changes to someones patch first, before
going off and make changes on your own. This is because it denies the
original contributor the opportunity to learn from his or her mistakes.
Cheers,
Marc
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 01:20 +0600, Urmas wrote:
> 2011/3/7, Ingo Brückl <ib@wupperonline.de>:
> >
> >> Which parts *exactly* are missing?
> >
> > Find attached the difference between the pre-r29620 patched version and
> > r29620 and you'll see.
>
> OK...
>
> ie_impexp_MSWrite.cpp: You've deleted a piece of text and put your
> copyright (which was not there before). I don't understand how one can
> author deleted text, sorry.
>
> ie_imp_MSWrite.cpp: entire difference is _3 empty lines_
>
> ie_imp_MSWrite.h: Yes, it was an unintended error on my behalf which I
> just fixed.
>
> Now you don't want to continue discussion about *1 line of text*, do you?
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 16 2011 - 00:47:29 CEST