Missing images in Insert Image dialog

RESOLVED FIXED in Thunderbird 48.0


3 years ago
3 years ago


(Reporter: Paenglab, Assigned: Paenglab)


Thunderbird 48.0

Thunderbird Tracking Flags

(thunderbird46 wontfix, thunderbird47 fixed, thunderbird48 fixed, thunderbird_esr4546+ fixed)



(2 attachments)

The images img-align-right.gif and img-align-top.gif are missing in Inser Image dialog in Align Text to Image menulist.
Re-add the images which are removed in 2012.
[Approval Request Comment]
User impact if declined: no images in menulist
Testing completed (on c-c, etc.): not yet in c-c
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): low, really simple jar.mn change
Assignee: nobody → richard.marti
Attachment #8737522 - Flags: review?(mozilla)
Attachment #8737522 - Flags: approval-comm-esr45?
Attachment #8737522 - Flags: approval-comm-beta?
Attachment #8737522 - Flags: approval-comm-aurora?
Attachment #8737522 - Flags: review?(mozilla)
Attachment #8737522 - Flags: review+
Attachment #8737522 - Flags: approval-comm-aurora?
Attachment #8737522 - Flags: approval-comm-aurora+
Keywords: checkin-needed
Bug 1261608 - Re-add missing img-align* images bacj to jar.mn. r=jorgk a=fix to avoid spurious errors in mozmill test bustage CLOSED TREE
Closed: 3 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 48.0
"User impact if declined: no images in menulist" does not really give me enough information to understand the impact of this bug in TB 45.
Well, it's hard to *show* something that's missing ;-)

If you exercise the alignment menu on the top right of the dialogue, you will see that some alignments have icons, two don't. This has now been fixed.

I trust that answers your question ;-)
It's not the fact that something is missing that is the confusion, it is the use of generic terms. Something missing in "the menulist" or "the dialogue". It would be good if I did not have to look at the patch, and ultimately reproduce it myself, to figure out if this is a trivial or critical issue.

Please don't get me wrong, I am pleased that you are marking easy improvements for esr45, and I am happy to add them there.  But I would appreciate a little more detail in the "why?" this makes sense for uplift to esr45. I am not as close to this code as you are, so I need a "why for dummies".
Attachment #8737522 - Flags: approval-comm-esr45? → approval-comm-esr45+
Attachment #8737522 - Flags: approval-comm-beta? → approval-comm-beta-
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.