To me yes. 

Because livarotot is going to dead on inkscape at some point and the
bug than originate the broken revision have less scope than the
resulting bug, I think the best is not investigate over it and revert
the revision. with a comment to the bug not solved.

All the best, Jabier.

El dom, 20-03-2016 a las 18:18 +0000, C R escribió:
> Thanks for the update and the work. I'm glad to see the regression is
> still
> available in trunk.
> Maybe applying the regression would be easier than trying to fix the
> code?
>
> -C
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Jabiertxo Arraiza Cenoz <
> jabier.arraiza@...2893...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Is a bug "know" bug.
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1507049
> >
> > Thanks for the info!
> >
> >
> > El dom, 20-03-2016 a las 11:58 +0000, C R escribió:
> > >
> > > I re-installed 0.91 stable release, and opened the same file
> > > generated by
> > > inkscape-trunk, to see what would happen.
> > >
> > > As expected, Inkscape 0.91 (r13725) interperets the offset
> > > correctly.
> > > I
> > > jiggled the offset handle a little so Inkscape detected a change,
> > > then
> > > re-saved the file.
> > > Here is the re-saved result for comparison (open in browser to
> > > see
> > > the
> > > difference):
> > > http://www.opendesignstudio.org/inkscape/inkscape_dynamic_offset_
> > > 0.91
> > > _stable.svg
> > >
> > > Also, here is a gif animated comparison of the old offset and new
> > > on
> > > the
> > > same shape:
> > > http://www.opendesignstudio.org/inkscape/dynamic_offset_old_new_c
> > > ompa
> > > rison.gif
> > >
> > > -C
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:21 AM, C R <cajhne@...400...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You have an idea how much time could this bug happen?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, it happens on every shape I've tried. It's 100%
> > > > of
> > > > the
> > > > time, as far as I can tell.
> > > > Before, I got perfect shapes every time.
> > > > Now, all the vectors have either a slightly corrupt, or very
> > > > wavey
> > > > and
> > > > corrupt result after applying the offset.
> > > > It's almost as if the algorithm is trying to apply a smooth
> > > > effect
> > > > or
> > > > something.
> > > >
> > > > The result should be the same as applying a very thick line to
> > > > the
> > > > shape,
> > > > then converting stroke to path, and deleting the interior of
> > > > the
> > > > stroke.
> > > > This effect must be perfect. It should not have to guess or
> > > > estimate
> > > > anything, and should be pristinely uniform.
> > > >
> > > > Whatever was done to the calculation of the offset needs to be
> > > > reverted
> > > > back to the way it was.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again for your help, Jabier.
> > > >
> > > > -C
> > > >
> > > >