Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

According to release notes of 0.27.5 #1765 was included but it's not #2044

Closed
Wormnest opened this issue Jan 1, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #2045
Closed

According to release notes of 0.27.5 #1765 was included but it's not #2044

Wormnest opened this issue Jan 1, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #2045

Comments

@Wormnest
Copy link

Wormnest commented Jan 1, 2022

Describe the bug

The release notes of 0.27.5 state that PR #1765 was included in this release, however it was never committed to this branch.

To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. On Windows install GIMP 2.10.30 which includes exiv2 0.27.5 from MSYS2.
  2. Open any TIFF image that includes Exif.Image.PageName, e.g. (sorry, can't add tif directly and even after zipping it, it still doesn't want to add it)
  3. Open the metadata viewer and see that instead it still lists Exif.Image.0x011d as tag name (GIMP gets the literal name from exiv2).
Expected behavior

The metadata viewer should show the tag Exif.Image.PageName.

Desktop (please complete the following information):
  • OS and version: Windows 10 Home, 64-bit
  • Compiler and version: The version used on the GIMP release build.
  • Compilation mode and/or compiler flags: -
Additional context

When looking at https://github.com/Exiv2/exiv2/blob/0.27-maintenance/src/tags_int.cpp#L599 in the 0.27 maintenance branch I do not see this tag around line 599, while in the main branch I do see it at line 605.

@Wormnest Wormnest added the bug label Jan 1, 2022
@clanmills
Copy link
Collaborator

Clearly an error in the release notes (my mistake). We are continuing to maintain the 0.27-maintenance branch in case we need to produce a security release. However feature development is now focused on branch 'main'.

Perhaps we should back port this to 0.27-maintenance. What do you think.

@Wormnest
Copy link
Author

Wormnest commented Jan 1, 2022

This is just a minor visual issue, it personally doesn't bother me much if it wouldn't be back ported. On the other hand, it was announced as being included. As such, it might be better to include it in the next maintenance release if it can be done without too much hassle.

@clanmills clanmills linked a pull request Jan 1, 2022 that will close this issue
@clanmills
Copy link
Collaborator

Fix submitted: #2045

@kmilos kmilos added this to the v0.27.6 milestone Jan 3, 2022
@kmilos kmilos added the bug label Jan 3, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants