<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - FILESAVE: Saxparse error on file open (word/footnotes.xml line 2) after save to DOCX & file reload" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136441#c7">Comment # 7</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - FILESAVE: Saxparse error on file open (word/footnotes.xml line 2) after save to DOCX & file reload" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136441">bug 136441</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:telesto@surfxs.nl" title="Telesto <telesto@surfxs.nl>"> Telesto</a> <pre>(In reply to Aron Budea from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=136441#c3">comment #3</a>) @Offoptic > It's a bit unusual that I see 7.1.0.0.alpha0+ and 4.4.7.2 mentioned in the > comments, and at the same time the version is set to 6.0.0.3, which isn't > mentioned anywhere else. Accident. Tested 6.0.3. Switched the drop down.. moved on the 4.4.7.2.. bit didn't change it again. > It'd also be great to see the bugs added to the META bugs they belong to from the start. That's a policy matter which should be discussed. I personally don't like unconfirmed bugs in the meta bug list. As I list those meta bugs to look through them searching for existing bugs once in a while (and in those list there is no way of telling what's a confirmed bug or unconfirmed/needinfo bug). They only excepting currently being Skia meta. As the developer himself (un)confirms bug which isn't the usual approach. And it speed up the process Secondly adding bugs to meta bugs is a really time consuming business. I really have to look up the meta bug list nearly every time. Or i'm doing something pretty inefficient.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>