<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Tracking changes creates an entry for every change (so pasting a column means an entry for every cell)" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134307#c4">Comment # 4</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Tracking changes creates an entry for every change (so pasting a column means an entry for every cell)" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134307">bug 134307</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:telesto@surfxs.nl" title="Telesto <telesto@surfxs.nl>"> Telesto</a> <pre>(In reply to Eike Rathke from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=134307#c3">comment #3</a>) > No, it shouldn't. Or rather, it could in this one special case only if the > target range was empty. As soon as existing data is replaced by the paste at > least those individual values and changes must be tracked. So while > splitting the paste into blocks of empty and non-empty target ranges might > be a solution, tracking the empty target blocks would yield just a "here is > a block of pasted data". If those then before empty cells contained data > before which was cleared before pasting, going back in history to pick an > older value would have to split that one block again. Same if a value in a > pasted range is changed later. While all this may be doable it would quite > complicate the tracking and the dependencies of changes. Valid point.. FWIW.. excel does the same thing.. so not even sure if this 'broken' .. maybe the perf side of this should be tackled... someday</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>