| 1 |
Nathan L. Adams wrote: |
| 2 |
> Also, in the case were the 'fix' doesn't actually fix the bug, you waste |
| 3 |
> alot more development time by letting it slip through and having to |
| 4 |
> 'fix' it again later. So you can justify the time cost now, with time |
| 5 |
> saved later. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Just think of it as branch prediction. |
| 8 |
If the case you describe here truly were that common, we'd all be doomed |
| 9 |
anyway, as that would mean the common case is developers closing bugs |
| 10 |
without fixing them and users filing bugs but not being interested if |
| 11 |
they're fixed. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> But then again, developer time *is* a very scarce resource. That's why I |
| 14 |
> fielded the idea that the verification process only be required on |
| 15 |
> things like Portage. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yes, in a volunteer project such scrutinous QA will certainly only work |
| 18 |
in a small domain, and is only really feasible for the most critical |
| 19 |
components. On the other hand, IMHO, these components are already the |
| 20 |
most thoroughly tested - I'd trust portage with brain surgery any day! |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
As a final note, I have enjoyed this conversation but I'm actually not |
| 23 |
really qualified to talk about these matters as I'm not a gentoo dev, so |
| 24 |
I'll refrain from more philosophizing - otherwise somebody might take me |
| 25 |
up on that brain-surgery thing :) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Marco |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives