<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Document recovery strips encryption" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93389#c14">Comment # 14</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Document recovery strips encryption" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93389">bug 93389</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:documentfoundation@nuclearsunshine.com" title="documentfoundation@nuclearsunshine.com">documentfoundation@nuclearsunshine.com</a> <pre>> Wrong, see <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=93389#c7">comment 7</a>. Not wrong, what it actually needed was anyone else to run through the listed steps to confirm it, which takes ~2 minutes. I completely understand *why* there is the principle of "you can't confirm your own bug", however, that should *only* be applied as a principle *if* it's ***not*** reproducible, otherwise it's just deck-chair rearranging. No-one even tried to reproduce it. In addition, per <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=93389#c6">comment 6</a>, I even went to the effort of testing this in a fresh VM to eliminate personal system config. and re-verify reproducibility. Blindly applying rules when there's actually an intelligent/useful/obvious/quick alternative action helps no-one. This is pretty obvious from the fact that this bug languished for 2.5 years because e.g. Xisco chose to quote a rule rather than run through the steps, and there has been a serious document security problem that only *now* has been raised in importance.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>