Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a new text document.
2. On the first line, just type some text.
3. On the second line, start the numbering, and add some text.
4. On the third line, the numbering is automatically set to "2.". Add some text.
5. Now you want to also include the numbering for the first line. So you click anywhere in the first line and click the "numbering" button.
=> Both the first and second lines start with "1.". The second line should have been incremented to "2." and the third line to "3.".
This is more an enhancement request; you can never predict what the user exactly wanted, just guess that he/she wanted to extend the numbering.
[This is an automated message.]
This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed. The bug is
changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from NEEDINFO back
to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1 or beta2 prereleases.
Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
more detail on this bulk operation: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RFC-Operation-Spamzilla-tp3607474p3607474.html
Dear bug submitter!
Due to the fact, that there are a lot of NEEDINFO bugs with no answer within the last six months, we close all of these bugs.
To keep this message short, more infos are available @ https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/NeedinfoClosure#Statement
Thanks for understanding and hopefully updating your bug, so that everything is prepared for developers to fix your problem.
Tested with LibO 22.214.171.124 and steps to reproduce in comment 0 are still valid to reproduce the issue.
Okay, status set to NEW
Tested with LibO 5.3 beta2 and steps to reproduce in comment 0 are still valid
to reproduce the issue.
Of course, selecting all three, turning off numbering and turning it back on "fixes" the issue. Very little incentive (low priority) to touch this and risk all kinds of problems, and nobody else included in the CC list after many years.
This doesn't seem like a problem, as Justin noticed.
But, for me problem is another step:
6. go to 2nd line and right-click "Continue previous numbering"
=> 2nd line is 2. (OK) but 3rd line is 1. instead od 3. (NOK)
(In reply to Timur from comment #10)
> => 2nd line is 2. (OK) but 3rd line is 1. instead od 3. (NOK)
I confirm this with 126.96.36.199.alpha1 and I also think, that this is a bug.