Created attachment 45173 [details]
Patches for basegfx

Created attachment 45174 [details]
Patches for sd

Created attachment 45175 [details]
Patches for svx

Created attachment 45176 [details]
Patches for avmedia

I'm not sure if avmedia belongs to the graphics project, but I've felt that it
likely does, so I've attached its patch too.

Created attachment 45369 [details]
Corrected patch for svx

The patch for svx was about to introduce a bug as spotted by Oliver. I have
attached a fixed patch and I will check the patches again to see if I made any
more mistakes like that. Sorry.

accepted, waiting for final 'Go' from cyhawk.

cyhawk: please reassign to me after your review of the patches. Thx

cyhawk, did you finish your final checks yet? In case of 'yes', please reassign
to me (ka) for review and integration.

ka: I haven't had the time yet, sorry. I'll go through them within the month.

ping

Hi! I'm terribly sorry about the long delays...

I have reviewed all of these patches now, and I think they are alright. The
mistake that Oliver noticed was that in one instance I changed the order of
declaration of attributes in the hxx file to match the order the attributes were
initialized in the constructor in the cxx file. The problem with this is that no
matter the order they are listed in the contructor the attributes are
initialized in the order of declaration so this way I changed the tab order of
some GUI elements accidentally.

There are more examples of changing the order of declaration in the patches, but
after reviewing them I think they are for the better. From looking at the
constructors it clearly looks like the programmer intended those attributes to
be initialized in an order different from the declaration, because they are
depending on each other. These changes also do not happen in GUI classes, so
hopefully they do not change anything for the worse.

The diff still contain a number of instances where it seems that I just
accidentally added some newlines or other formatting, sorry about that.

Also there are a number of changes that concern the sal_Int32 vs long literal
problem, which I still don't clearly understand and on which I was trying in
vain to get feedback from the guys who wrote the code checking application. I
think it's safe to omit these patches for now.

The rest of the changes are more diverse and I think they are okay.

Thank you for your patience!

reassign back to ka

started review

changed target to 3.0.1

ping ? set target to 3.x

set target to 3.2

OOo 3.2 is in show-stopper stage. If this issue is critical for the release
please re-target it back. Otherwise this issue will be set to target 3.x now.

I'm adding this comment to all open issues with Issue Type == PATCH.  We have 220 such issues, many of them quite old.  I apologize for that.  

We need your help in prioritizing which patches should be integrated into our next release, Apache OpenOffice 4.0.

If you have submitted a patch and think it is applicable for AOO 4.0, please respond with a comment to let us know.

On the other hand, if the patch is no longer relevant, please let us know that as well.

If you have any general questions or want to discuss this further, please send a note to our dev mailing list:  dev@openoffice.apache.org

Thanks!

-Rob

Thanks for reviving the thread!

I haven't kept up with OpenOffice developments. But as far as I remember these patches were fairly simple and did not affect functionality, so they most likely still apply. For example, as described in previous comments, the patches fix some cases where class members are initialized in incorrect order.

I cannot offer to update the patches though. I'm completely out of touch with OpenOffice code nowadays.

Reset assigne to the default "issues@openoffice.apache.org".