Description of problem: OOo2.0.2(calc) Cell RH bottom drag handle used to copy the contents of the cell automatically (if text) and fill series with increment of one if number in earlier versions of OOo ( 1.1.x).Now this nice behaviour is replaced by a dialog box which helps define series type. A shortcut should always produce a direct action, whereas for more controlled actions you should have menu commands. Like Bug 64375 I have filed, this behaviour is annoying. These behaviours were ironed out correctly in 1.1.x series, but have resurfaced in 2.x.x. versions. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): OOo2.0.2 How reproducible: Drag Steps to Reproduce: 1.Enter 1 in A1, 2 in A2. 2.Drag A2 cell handle (Right Hand Bottom) over a few cells down. 3.A Dialog Box comes up. Actual results: A Dialog Box comes up for defining series. Expected results: A series beginning with 1 and an increment of 1 should automatically be filled. Additional info: Paste from issue 64378 on qa.openoffice.org Cell RH bottom drag handle used to copy the contents of the cell automatically (if text) and fill series with increment of one if number in earlier versions of OOo ( 1.1.x).Now this nice behaviour is replaced by a dialog box which helps define series type. A shortcut should always produce a direct action, whereas for more controlled actions you should have menu commands. Like Bug 64375 I have filed, this behaviour is annoying. These behaviours were ironed out correctly in 1.1.x series, but have resurfaced in 2.x.x. versions. ------- Additional comments from gercokees Fri May 19 04:55:00 -0700 2006 ------ - hmm, i do not understand. i do not get a dialogbox but just fill series or content copies. Just like u stated in your first paragraph... so, is this problem solved in 2.0.2? Of does it still persist? ------- Additional comments from peebhat Tue May 23 10:15:00 -0700 2006 ------- I have cross-checked my statement.In Fedora C4,with latest updates,the bug- behaviour persists as also in FC5 with OOo2.0.2. I cannot say if it is only a Fedora issue Parameshwara Bhat ------- Additional comments from dridgway Tue May 23 22:52:26 -0700 2006 ------- WFM also (OOo 2.0.2 OS X). Are you using binaries downloaded from openoffice.org, or were they provided with Fedora? If not official openoffice.org binaries, then please try to reproduce with official binaries, or report it through Fedora's issue tracking system.
*** Bug 192949 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Red Hat reviews and scrubs its code for intellectual property issues. Our approach has always been conservative, i.e., if there is any question, resolve the issue or remove the code. Red Hat recently implemented a number of changes in its distribution of OpenOffice to address such issues. These changes should not be construed as implying any immediate intellectual property problem; rather, they have been implemented to assure that no such immediate problems arise. While implementing these changes in our own distribution of OpenOffice, we have also made them available upstream to the OpenOffice project.
(In reply to comment #2) > Red Hat reviews and scrubs its code for intellectual property issues. Our > approach has always been conservative, i.e., if there is any question, resolve > the issue or remove the code. Red Hat recently implemented a number of changes > in its distribution of OpenOffice to address such issues. These changes should > not be construed as implying any immediate intellectual property problem; > rather, they have been implemented to assure that no such immediate problems > arise. While implementing these changes in our own distribution of OpenOffice, > we have also made them available upstream to the OpenOffice project. Do you mean to say the code which set right these behaviours had IP issues? But Openoffice versions 1.1.x distributed from Fedora had these behaviours ironed out to go with MSOffice behaviour as also better usability. IF there were IP issues,were they pointed out to Openoffice ? Parameshwara Bhat
*** Bug 245118 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 530683 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***