No no no. :)
Nothing wrong with FIXING it for the BIG COMPANY.
It's wrong to ****RE-FIX***** it for the BIG COMPANY by making someone do it again.
That's my point. :) The small time guy was trying to be part of the solution.
That's the point I'm making. Not that it was deliberate. Saying that "research" in
issuezilla would have shown the bug as the same and that maybe some of the effort
could have been avoided.
Shamim Islam
kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>
>"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 19:20:18 2003