Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 13:55, John Peacock wrote:
>>The fact that the existing code makes that overly broad assumption
>>doesn't make it right.
>
>
> It makes it right in the context of this particular change. If we've
> fallen into a particular pattern of bad-but-convenient behavior, it
> makes perfect sense to take advantage of that as long as it won't make
> it any harder to dig ourselves out of the hole at such a time as it
> becomes necessary.
I'm not arguing against the patch in question; I am arguing about the
"we know it's suboptimal but the codebase already makes these poor
assumptions so why not continue doing it that way" mindset. If it is
possible to add new code the correct way now (meaning it won't have to
be fixed later), that should always be preferred to adding it knowing
that it will have to be adjusted "at such time as it becomes necessary."
I just happen to be sensitive to this because I forsee having to clean
up someone else's mess.
John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jun 26 17:24:28 2004