<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [feature request, FORMATTING] group selection does not work with raster images" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34438#c50">Comment # 50</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [feature request, FORMATTING] group selection does not work with raster images" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34438">bug 34438</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:telesto@surfxs.nl" title="Telesto <telesto@surfxs.nl>"> Telesto</a> <pre>(In reply to Luke from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=34438#c49">comment #49</a>) > Why is this listed as a "papercut"? From Regina's analysis in <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=34438#c48">Comment 48</a>, > the developer is going to have to be very careful to not break things worse > than they fix. For a student developer new the codebase, this sounds like a > standalone project itself. Me to blame for being on the list. Only did suggestions on the 'papercut' without understanding of the complexity. Actually full change of Writer image handling was not something I did foresee. Change of image handling is not done at GSOC if I'm reading this correctly: <a href="https://bayramcicek.com.tr/libreoffice-dev/2021/07/11/week-05-gsoc.html">https://bayramcicek.com.tr/libreoffice-dev/2021/07/11/week-05-gsoc.html</a> "developer is going to have to be very careful to not break things." Totally true. Sidenote: I personally prefer that changes are pushed into fresh master branch from nearly spin-off point. Which I call the Justin L strategy. As changing Writer image handling will certainly break things, kind of convinced of that. Some bugs will be very noticeable, if something goes wrong (especially if it affects page layout/wrap). So long testing/ repairing period would really helpful.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>