[PATCH 2/2] Ticket #831 Fix

[Dirk Hohndel]

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 07:49:47AM +0200, Yosef Hamza wrote:
> Those 2 patches are actually one, But I think that the second patch needs
> some discussion.

As Robert already mentioned, the second patch (0003) is simply wrong. That
code was there for a reason :-)

> I think it's better this way because through trying and fixing the error
> there wasn't  a way -that I'm aware of at least- to cancel the added event
> @0:00.

There are different reasons why there would be an event at time 0:00
Some dive computers include a gas change event in the first sample (which
often is a few seconds into the dive and not at 0:00) to indicate the
first gas used. Those are valid and important events for the logic of how
we treat a dive, but they shouldn't be displayed as they make no sense to
the casual user.

The question to ask the bug submitter is "why do you want to add a gas
change at 0'/0:00? -- is this to correct the first gas used?"


The other patch (0002) I don't understand. At least in the function where
you added this code there is no unsigned comparison. Can you explain this
a bit more?

/D