>>>I guess that would stop the crash, but is it just hiding the
>>>underlying, unknown, cause of the bug? Is parent_status getting set
>>>incorrectly?
>>
>>Please let's not get into the discussion again wheter a bug needs to
>>be fixed or not. I think you guys know my opinion about this: if
>>there's obviously a bug in the code, fix it. Even if you don't know
>>exactly what has to happen to trigger the bug - it's still a bug, and
>>in this case a crash.
>
>
> I'm not keen on fixes that don't have regression tests; I strongly
> dislike "fixes" for things that cannot be explained. How do you know
> that status produces the right output with your fix?
I'm a nobody regarding this project, but I cannot stop myself
from commenting it ;-)
I think Steve is right. Here are two bugs:
a) A roubustness bug in this particular function reported by Steve.
b) A unknown bug causing this particular condition triggering bug a).
If a customer has to jump out of a airplane because of an emergency
(bug a), but then his parachute fails to open (bug b),
then the first thing is to fix the parachute problem;
you don't wait until the airplane problem is understood and fixed.
Especially, as Steve already pointed out:
If svn status fails in Tortoise, this is worst case!
The parachute does not open - a part of Windows itself crashes!
If you worry about fixing a) makes it harder to understand b),
then there should be better ways to go.
E.g. adding a black-box to your airplane:
add asserts and tests at well-defined places etc.
To understand and fix a bug b), it is not good to rely
on another bug a) which accidently shows up
(but the relation to bug b is not known at all).
Just my 2 cents ;-)
Cheers,
Folker
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 4 15:19:44 2004