use this issue for collecting all related issues for the subject
Added two more bugs: bug 34773 and bug 34147.
I have tried to test all 'unconfirmed' bugs listed here and either to promote them to 'New' status with good descriptions or to close them (bug 35900 is just a misunderstanding, therefore closed).
@Cor Nouws etc.:
Should 'Depends on' and 'blocks' not be the other way around? I.E., should not the list of all particular bug numbers be in the 'Depends on' field, and in the singular bug reports, should the number of this meta bug (48741) not be in the 'Blocks' field instead of the 'Depends on' field? Compare e.g. bug 37361 - "LibreOffice 3.5 most annoying bugs".
Please forgive me (and forget my question) if I am just missing something ;-)
(In reply to comment #2)
> Should 'Depends on' and 'blocks' not be the other way around?
Looks as if you are right :-)
Thanks for your attention for these issues (me lacking time atm)!
Interchanged Depends on/Blocks, according to comment #3 and after the example of bug 35673, bug 37361 etc.
Some more candidates added ...
Added bug 49426.
adding 56513 : Regression: Second header/footer of section lost during FILESAVE as .doc
Add bug 51127 - asked commiter of that to try to find the details
for reference adding bug 56513
(for which already a patch has been submitted)
(In reply to comment #9)
> for reference adding bug 56513
> (for which already a patch has been submitted)
Could have skipped this - did it before :-\
Restricted my LibreOffice hacking area
*** Bug 84462 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Summary -> (mark as a [META] bug)
Component -> filters and storage
Meta bug for issues related to the content or settings of a page's header and footer areas, which does not include footnote issues, which can be found in bug 103164, as footnotes arent part of the footer in LO.