Let me restate: I said: > been fixed at source. Regardless of issues of moving targets or lack > of resources, trying to maintain a complex piece of code on top of an > unstable platform is a complete waste of time.
To which you replied: > ...try and track down the problem, sit on it for a couple of weeks > (major CVS trouble/bugs/glitches usually get caught in > a day or a couple of days at the worst) and then incorporate the change. What part of this isn't a complete waste of my time? What part of this couldn't be better served by someone who already runs CVS Emacs on a daily basis and uses BBDB? Like I said, I won't turn down patches that are non-invasive fixes for CVS Emacs; I *will* turn down patches that are simply trying to use new features that I would otherwise have to backport or conditionally compile or whatever, and I will turn down code that breaks my running system in favour of making CVS Emacs happy. Now, please. I think I've made it clear that I'm quite stubbornly adherent to this point, so can we let this be the last mail on the topic? I'd rather hear more from people with bugs that need fixing and means of reproducing them (hello emacs_user...) than discuss niceties of how I'm willing to spend my time. Cheers, Waider. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Yes, it /is/ very personal of me. Thinking that America holds a monopoly on mediocrity is the sort of typical smallmindedness that gets you into this sort of mess in the first place. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ bbdb-info@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bbdb-info BBDB Home Page: http://bbdb.sourceforge.net/
