"Files" <files@poetryunlimited.com> writes:
> The point was that A BUG REPORT from a BIG ORGANIZATION with NO SOLUTION got
> ASSIGNED and FIXED when a small timer POSTING A BUG REPORT with A
> SOLUTION got dropped.
This is simply not true, if you're implying that we deliberately
"assigned" the bug to a pre-1.0 milestone only after perl.com noticed
it.
An individual developer may have chosen to fix it after perl.com
noticed it, and can schedule it for pre-1.0 on the understanding that
they were committing to fix it... But that's the developer's choice.
The project's overall schedule never demanded this bugfix before 1.0
-- not after you reported it, not after perl.com reported it, and not
even if ibm.com or whitehouse.gov were to report it.
[And anyway, what's wrong with a developer paying more attention to a
bug report from a big organization than from an individual? The big
organization might represent more users. Even if it doesn't, the
maintainer responsible for the code might feel that it's too
personally embarrassing to have the bug report in the perl.com
database or whatever. Is there something wrong with this? No. It's
a perfectly valid motivation for fixing a bug. I'm not saying this is
what happened, but if it did, I am perfectly okay with it, and am
frankly surprised that you're not.]
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Aug 25 19:12:18 2003