Ben+Magnus, thank you. Good news is that I can confirm that in 125.0b4 the problem I reported in bug 1888585 does not occur anymore. Nothing is appended at the end: neither a \r\n nor a single \n. This probably means the bug is fixed ? If so, if bug 1888585 truly is a duplicate of bug 1716651, doesn't this mean, the latter would have to be closed as fixed as well ? Bad news is, there seems to be a regression: While TB115 suffers from the appended CRLF bug, it doesn't otherwise modify the imported file. However TB125.0b4 strips the first line (envelope) from the file. TB115 didn't do that. What should I do ? File a bug for that apparent regression ?
Bug 1716651 Comment 6 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Ben+Magnus, thank you. Good news is that I can confirm that in 125.0b4 the problem I reported in bug 1888585 does not occur anymore. Nothing is appended at the end: neither a `\r\n` nor a single `\n`. This probably means the bug is fixed ? If so, if bug 1888585 truly is a duplicate of bug 1716651, doesn't this mean, the latter would have to be closed as fixed as well ? Bad news is, there seems to be a regression: While TB115 suffers from the appended CRLF bug, it doesn't otherwise modify the imported file. However TB125.0b4 strips the first line (envelope) from the file. TB115 didn't do that. What should I do ? File a bug for that apparent regression ?
Ben+Magnus, thank you. Good news: I can confirm that in 125.0b4 the problem I reported in bug 1888585 does not occur anymore. Nothing is appended at the end: neither a `\r\n` nor a single `\n`. This probably means the bug is fixed ? If so, if bug 1888585 truly is a duplicate of bug 1716651, doesn't this mean, the latter would have to be closed as fixed as well ? Bad news is, there seems to be a regression: While TB115 suffers from the appended CRLF bug, it doesn't otherwise modify the imported file. However TB125.0b4 strips the first line (envelope) from the file. TB115 didn't do that. What should I do ? File a bug for that apparent regression ?